Preamble

The House met—after the Adjournment on 13th May for the Whitsuntide Recess—at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Cattedown Wharves Bill [Lords].

Tendring Hundred Water and Gas Bill [Lords].

Liverpool Corporation Bill [Lords].

Lymington Rural District Council Bill [Lords].

County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords].

Grimsby Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Batley Corporation Bill.

Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Lochaber Water Power Bill.

To be considered upon Thursday.

East Surrey Water Bill (by Order).

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PUNJAB COUNCIL (PUBLICITY GRANT).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Punjab Council have refused to sanction the Budget grant for the Publicity Department; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take to place the true facts of the situations that arise in India before the people?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. All Governments in India are taking active and successful steps to supply the public with accurate information.

Sir C. YATE: Does that mean that one of the first acts of the reformed Council will be to put a stop to all efforts on the part of the Government to prohibit revolutionary propaganda in the Punjab?

Mr. MONTAGU: The reply to that question would require consideration. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would put it on the Paper.

RIOTS, MALEGAON.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the state of affairs at Malegaon; whether the recent riots there were due to the agitation of an individual called Ghandhi; and whether any other disturbances have been reported between the 12th and the 24th which could be attributed to the action of this man?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have no further information regarding the Malegaon disturbances beyond that already issued to the Press on the 28th April and the 2nd, 10th, and 13th May. I will send the Noble Lord copies of these communiques. I have heard of no disturbances between the 12th and 24th May.

PUNJAB DISTURBANCES.

Sir J. D. REES: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Viceroy and Governor-General has visited Lahore to consider the disputes relating to the shrines of Gardwaras; and, if so, whether
he can make any communication on this subject and the payment of increased grants for payment of compensation to sufferers by the disturbances in the Punjab?

Mr. MONTAGU: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I will place in the Library a copy of the speech in which the Viceroy dealt with the two points to which the hon. Baronet refers.

BUDGET.

Sir J. D. REES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the arrangement under which the Council of State is unable to discuss the Budget is of a permanent or an irrevocable character?

Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir. The Standing Order of the Council which prevents discussion is alterable by the Council itself, with the consent of the Governor-General.

AFGHANISTAN (BRITISH MISSION).

Sir J. D. REES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether there is any further information to give the House regarding the results of the negotiations of the British Mission at Kabul?

Mr. MONTAGU: The negotiations are still proceeding, and I cannot yet make any statement as to the results.

GAOLS REPORT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India when he expects that the Indian Gaols Report will be published; and will the evidence be also published?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Report has been formally presented, and I hope that copies will be available for distribution next week. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

PENSIONS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India how much is now contributed annually from the Indian Budget to each of the following: General Dyer, Sir Michael O'Dwyer, Colonel Frank Johnson, and Mr. Bosworth Smith; and will he approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to getting these charges transferred from the Indian to the British Budget?

Mr. MONTAGU: The figures are as follow:—Sir Michael O'Dwyer and Mr. Bosworth Smith, £1,000 and £900 respectively, of which a considerable portion represents funds contributed by the officers themselves; General Dyer, £900, of which approximately one-twelfth will be debitable, on adjustment, to British revenues on account of a period of service out of India. Colonel Johnson draws no pension from Indian revenues. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

ARMY REDUCTIONS.

Sir C. YATE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the total number of cavalry regiments maintained by the various Powers in Europe, with the exception of Russia; and how does this number compare with the eight regiments of British cavalry and the 21 regiments of Indian cavalry of three squadrons each to which the Army in India is to be reduced, considering that India has practically the same area, the same population, and the same diversity of race and language as the whole of Europe without Russia?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have not the information upon which to base a comparison, nor does it seem to me worth while to obtain material with which to weigh together incomparable matters.

Sir C. YATE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is absolutely impossible to hold an enormous country like India with 29 cavalry regiments?

Mr. MONTAGU: It does not seem to me that you can measure the military force necessary in one country by comparison with another country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we holding India with the Army?

Mr. MONTAGU: No.

Sir C. YATE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the successful candidates at the competitive examination held in November, 1916, for admission to the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and the Military College, Quetta, with a view to appointment to the Indian Army, and who are holding permanent commissions in the Indian Army, are now to be dismissed
owing to the reductions in the Indian Army; and, if so, what compensation is to be given them to enable them to start on a new career?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have received no proposals for the dismissal of these officers.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MARESFIELD CAMP (FIRE).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War when payments by way of compensation for loss of their kits will be made to the 21 officers whose uniforms and outfits were completely destroyed by the fire which occurred in the signalling school camp at Maresfield in November last; and is he aware that these young officers were compelled to buy new outfits and kits immediately, and that nearly all of them are suffering serious financial embarrassment owing to the delay in the award of compensation for their losses?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): All claims received have now been dealt with. The claimants have been informed, through the usual military channels, of the awards of compensation made, but, owing to the fact that many of them have moved from Maresfield since the fire, the information may not yet have reached all of them.

WESSEX TERRITORIALS.

Mr. HURD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can announce that the 1914–15 Star will be awarded to the Wessex Territorials in fulfilment of the promise given to them by the late Lord Kitchener?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I regret I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on this subject, but I hope that a decision will shortly be reached.

Mr. HURD: If I put a further question in a week's time, will it be of any use?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not hurry me. It is an extremely difficult question to settle.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

GAME COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 19.
asked the Secretary for Scotland why the Report of the Game Committee, which was in the printers' hands two months ago, has not yet been published; and when it will be published?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I regret that the completion of this Report has been delayed, owing to the indisposition of the chairman of the Committee. I am glad to learn that he is now better, and I hope that the Report will be presented to me at an early date.

Major WOOD: Has the Chairman been indisposed for three months?

Mr. MUNRO: I have already explained the reason for the delay, and nobody regrets it more than I do. There will be no avoidable delay in presenting the Report.

DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS.

Major WOOD: 20.
asked the Secretary for Scotland when the remaining Reports of the Scottish Departments will be issued?

Mr. MUNRO: The Report of the Scottish Education Department has already been presented, and those of the Prison Commissioners, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, the Astronomer-Royal, the Scottish Land Court, the Board of Trustees, and the General Board of Control are expected to be ready, very shortly. Other outstanding Reports (with the exception of the Registrar-General's Report) will, it is hoped, be ready by the middle of June.

Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are got out well before the day on which the Scottish Estimates are taken?

Mr. MUNRO: Yes. I always keep that in view.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL RATES (INCREASE).

Mr. KILEY: 21.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is the intention to raise the charges for newspapers and telegrams with a view to meeting the deficit on the Vote?

Mr. GILBERT: 22.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it has yet been decided by his Department to increase the price of postage on inland and foreign postcards; and, if so, can he state what the new postage will be, and at what rate he proposes to put the same into force?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): In order to meet the anticipated deficit on the Post Office services for the current year, the Government propose to increase certain of the postal rates as from Monday, 13th June next.
The principal changes will be an increase in the rate for postcards, inland and foreign, from 1d. to 1½d.; in the rate for inland printed papers not exceeding 1 oz. in weight from ½d. to 1d.; and in the foreign letter rate from 2½d. to 3d. There are other minor changes which I will include in a statement to be circulated with the Votes. It is not proposed to alter the charge for telegrams, or for inland letters, parcels or newspapers
These increases, most of which were foreshadowed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement last year, are imposed solely to meet the exceptionally high costs at present prevailing. As soon as a fall in costs assures a surplus on the Post Office balance sheet, the public will be given the benefit of it by a reduction in charges.
In view of the urgent need for restricting public expenditure, the Government also propose to discontinue the collection, delivery and despatch of letters on Sunday, but a collection will continue to be made in town areas either late on Sunday night, or early on Monday morning, for local delivery.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain these increased charges, and will he get the sanction of the House before the new charges are imposed?

Mr. KELLAWAY: No, Sir, that cannot be done, but an opportunity for discussing them will be given on the Post Office Estimates.

Mr. GILBERT: Is it proposed to have the same postage rates for inland as for foreign postcards; and, if so, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes. The reason is that very little revenue is derived from
foreign postcards, and a further increase would probably have the effect of decreasing the revenue.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is there any increase on newspapers and printed matter sent abroad?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Not on inland newspapers, but on newspapers sent abroad, and on printed matter sent abroad.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman effecting any economies in the working expenses of the Department, so that the whole of the burden may not fall upon the public?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes. I am fully alive to the necessity for economy. The reason I have decided to abolish the Sunday post is that it is very un-remunerative; but I am not confining myself to that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how far the deficit on the telegraph and telephone services are to be filled up by these extra charges on the postal services?

Mr. KELLAWAY: It will be impossible to discuss these changes now with advantage in detail, but undoubtedly there has been a deficit on the telegraph service.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: And has that charge been thrown upon the Post Office?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, it has been thrown upon the Post Office.

Viscount CURZON: How many of these changes will come into force before the House has an opportunity of discussing them?

Mr. KILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman increase the charges for private telegraph wires to the Press?

Mr. KELLAWAY: No. It is not proposed to put a further charge on private telegraph wires. These new charges will come into force on the 13th of June, and no doubt, if the Estimates come on before that date, hon. Members will have an opportunity of discussing this question.

Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Leader of the House to see that the Post Office Estimates are put down before the changes come into force?

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Will the increase in the postages to foreign countries cause any increase in the postages from foreign countries to this country?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Other foreign countries which come under the International Convention are raising their charges.

Sir C. YATE: Would it not be better to reduce the amount of weight for inland letters from three to two ounces instead of putting an extra halfpenny on the postcards?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not think that would bring in the same amount of revenue.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

HELICOPTER MACHINE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is in a position to state the result of recent experiments with the helicopter flying machine; whether experiments are being continued; whether he will consider offering a prize or bonus to inventors for successful flights made under, or improvements to, this system; and whether the Air Ministry is using all possible efforts to develop this system in view of its possibilities for commercial flying?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): In reply to the first and second parts of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I regret to say that the developments of the helicopter experiments are not yet sufficiently advanced to show definite results, but as soon as they have been obtained, full information will be given. Anyone who solves this problem will be sufficiently rewarded by the patents which he will retain and the number of orders which he will receive. The Air Ministry are conducting experiments in this direction, and are utilising the brains and money which are at their disposal in the way which seems to them to promise the best and speediest result.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French have offered substantial prizes to anyone who solves the problem? Would it not be worth while for the Ministry also to offer prizes in view of the benefit that would be derived?

Captain GUEST: The system of bonuses and prizes for inventions was, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in operation during the War, but since then we have had to discontinue it.

Mr. RAPER: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Ministry is financing experiments with a helicopter at or near Farnborough, which are being carried on by Mr. Brennan; if so, whether the Brennan helicopter has been given a trial; whether it has succeeded in rising from the ground; and what sum has been allocated for these experiments?

Captain GUEST: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. To the second and third parts, in the negative, and to the fourth, that a sufficient sum has been allocated to enable these promising experiments to be continued.

BRITISH AIR LINES (SUBSIDY).

Mr. RAPER: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the present subsidy to British air lines is confined to one machine per day in each direction; and, if so, whether this limiting of the services results in the turning away of would-be passengers?

Captain GUEST: The present subsidy is designed to assist the running of two machines in each direction each day, but there is no restriction against the firms operating additional machines without subsidy. The lack of sufficient suitable machines, however, has hitherto limited the service to one machine in each direction each day, except on special occasions, and, as a consequence of this shortage, and of the expansion of the traffic, would-be passengers are being turned away.

Mr. MILLS: Has this any relation to the increased cost of the postal service?

Captain GUEST: No, Sir, we have no contract with the Post Office at the moment.

Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the passengers turned away by British companies are being carried by the French companies?

Captain GUEST: Yes, Sir.

AIR-WORTHINESS CERTIFICATES.

Mr. RAPER: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether foreign aeroplanes
plying for hire or reward in this country are required to have an air-worthiness certificate which guarantees them to be up to the standard of British machines holding these certificates?

Captain GUEST: Under the International Air Convention, every aircraft engaged in international navigation must be provided with a certificate of airworthiness issued or rendered valid by the State whose nationality the aircraft possesses. Until the standard minimum requirements of such certificates shall have been laid down by the International Commission for Air Navigation, the individual States are responsible for determining the conditions under which their certificates may be granted.

Mr. RAPER: Do the certificates held by the French machines show that they are of equal efficiency with the British machines?

Captain GUEST: My hon. Friend will appreciate from the reply I have given that the matter of the International Air Convention has not yet been definitely ratified in the fullest international sense. Our hope is that the negotiations will terminate in that sense.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (MOTOR CAR REGULATIONS).

Viscount CURZON: 27.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether there is any Regulation forbidding motor cars to stop in the Royal Parks; whether there is any Regulation forbidding persons to learn to drive automobiles, bicycles, or horse-drawn vehicles in the parks; if so, what are the reasons for such Regulations; and is he prepared to consider some modification of these Regulations?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): Motor cars are not forbidden to stop in the Royal Parks, but learning to drive is contrary to the Regulations. The Regulations are framed in the interests of the general public, and are revised from time to time as circumstances change, but the First Commissioner does not see any reason at present for a modification of the Rules.

Viscount CURZON: Do the Regulations, which forbid people learning to drive motor vehicles in the parks, apply also to bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. Our Rules are framed with the object of preventing Sanger to the general public. The administration of those Rules is within the discretion of the officers in the parks.

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER - SHEE: Will the hon. Gentleman instruct the police to prevent motors drawing up on the riding track on the east side of the Park?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I will submit that to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEES (EXPENSES).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the total amounts paid to trade union representatives on the local employment, advisory, rota, and other employment committees of employment exchanges throughout the country for time lost while attending meetings, travelling expenses, and subsistence allowances for the years ended 31st March, 1920, and 31st March, 1921, also the amounts paid to employers' representatives in the same periods; and whether he will arrange for the committees in question to meet after ordinary working hours, and so save cost to the taxpayers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The total amounts paid to members of local advisory committees of the Employment Department of the Ministry of Labour for the two years in question were as follow:—


—
Year ended 31st March, 1920.
Year ended 31st March, 1921.



£
£


Travelling expense
3,420
2,209


Subsistence allowances and allowances for lost time.
16,945
16,582



20,365
18,791


Lost time allowances are paid only to workpeople following their trades who suffer an actual loss of wages by attending a meeting; subsistence allowances are paid only to members (employers and workpeople) who are necessarily absent from home for at least five hours, or who travel five miles each way to attend a meeting. The records of the Ministry do not show the total paid to workpeople separately from the total paid to employers. As these committees are voluntary bodies, the hour of meeting must be determined largely by the convenience of the chairmen and members. Nearly one-third of the number meet after ordinary working hours.

STATISTICS.

Mr. HOGGE: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women at present unemployed, and the number on short time, and the amount paid during the past week in unemployment relief and benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, respectively?

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed on 20th May, and the amount of unemployment benefit and donation paid out in the week ending on that date?

Sir M. BARLOW: The numbers unemployed on the 13th May, the latest date for which figures are available, according to the live registers of the Employment Exchanges, were:


Men
1,366,764


Women
471,790


Boys
81,486


Girls
69,078


The number claiming unemployment benefit and out-of-work donation for short-time working were:


Men
523,346


Women
500,884


Boys
39,476


Girls
68,564


The approximate amounts paid during the week ending 13th May in unemployment benefit and out-of-work donation were:



£


Unemployment Benefit
1,800,000


Out-of-Work Donation
14,700

AGRICULTURE (MINIMUM WAGE).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he has received a copy of the resolution passed by the Guardians of the Kingsclere Union, Hampshire, expressing the opinion that there will be no effective relief from the burden now being placed upon the rates by the existing unemployment of a number of able-bodied agricultural workers, who are willing to work, until the minimum agricultural wage fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board is considerably reduced and greater freedom allowed for wage-bargaining between the employer and the employed; and whether he will consider the desirability of advising district agricultural wages boards that wages should be fixed on an economic basis so as to lessen the serious unemployment prevalent in agricultural districts under the existing system?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I have been asked to reply. The resolution referred to has now reached me, and I have received other representations to a similar effect. Minimum rates of wages are fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board, on which employers of agricultural labour are fully and ably represented, and I shall be glad to call the attention of the Board to the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Mr. INSKIP: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of persons are applying for work on farms at rates less than the minimum wage, and that farmers are unable to employ them in consequence of the high rates which have been fixed?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have heard statements to that effect, and those representations will be sent to the Wages Board. My hon. and learned Friend must realise that I have no power whatever to interfere in the conduct of the business of the Board or with its decisions.

Sir J. REMNANT: Has the Wages Board power to deal with cases in which farmers, for the purpose of helping men, are willing to take them on at less than the current rate which has been fixed?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think I ought to have notice of a question of that sort, but I can just give this answer, that they give permission in cases where a man is suffering from a definite disability.

Major HOWARD: Can the right hon Gentleman say how many men there are on the Wages Board who are, or ever have been, agricultural labourers?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MANDATES COMMISSION).

Mr. HURD: 31.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether Governor Forbes declined the invitation of the Council of the League of Nations to serve on the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League because the Government of the United States does not wish any national of the United States to serve on this Commission pending a reconsideration of the Yap Mandate; whether the Council of the League intend to invite a national of some other State to serve on the commission in lieu of Governor Forbes; and, if so, of which State?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Balfour): Governor Forbes had to decline the invitation to become a member of the Permanent Mandates Commission owing to his having accepted an appointment on a mission for the United States Government to the Philippines. The question of the appointment of a substitute for Governor Forbes has not yet been brought before the Council.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the statement in the question that the objection of the United States depended on a reconsideration of the Yap Mandate correct? Is it not the present position that the United States repudiates the League and any Commission under it, root and branch—lock, stock, and barrel?

Mr. BALFOUR: I have given the House all the information at my disposal with regard to the motives, or reasons, which prevented Governor Forbes taking the appointment. I am afraid I can add nothing fresh to what I have said.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (ATTENDANTS).

Mr. MILLS: 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that attendants in the Serjeant-at-Arms'
Department of the House of Commons were on duty until 4.45 a.m. on 12th May; that no extra remuneration is paid to this staff for these extra services; and that they are required to be on duty with the calling of any Committee of this House; i.e., 11 a.m.; and will he consider the necessity for a review of these conditions of labour?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): A system of reliefs is in operation throughout all the sittings of the House, but no extra remuneration is given to messengers and others employed in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms for late sittings of the House. If the House sit after 5 a.m., an allowance of 5s. for refreshments is made to those on duty. When possible, messengers who have been on duty during a late sitting are excused attendance on Committees of the House on the following morning, the Committee duties being performed by messengers who have not been on late duty.

Mr. MILLS: Will the Department reconsider these terms of employment so as to make them somewhat in equity with the other conditions of employment in and about the Chamber?

Mr. YOUNG: I do not think there is any case for a reconsideration of the terms of employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD MATERIAL (SCOTLAND).

Mr. KENNEDY: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a number of town and county councils in the West of Scotland are in need of road material and are desirous of opening quarries for this purpose providing the necessary transport facilities can be arranged; and whether, in view of the fact that the opening of these quarries would find work for a large number of men at present out of employment, he will have inquiries made into the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I am aware that certain local authorities in the West of Scotland are desirous of opening quarries, but I do not
think that any difficulties with regard to transport have been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport. Under the present abnormal conditions, transport restrictions may of necessity have to be imposed; but if Scottish local authorities find any difficulty, I shall be glad to institute inquiries into individual cases as they arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.

RAILWAYS (LOSS).

Mr. HOGGE: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give an estimate of the loss to the railways in consequence of the coal stoppage?

Mr. NEAL: It is not possible to ascertain accurately the direct and indirect loss to the railway companies by the coal stoppage, but the following figures may enable my hon. Friend to form an estimate. The claims against the Government shown in the accounts presented by the controlled railways for the month of March last amounted to nearly £3,500,000, and for the month of April the preliminary figures to hand indicate claims of from £9,000,000 to £9,500,000. No later figures are available.

GOVERNMENT OFFER.

Captain TERRELL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes after the lapse of time which has occurred to fix a time limit to the acceptance or rejection of the offer of £10,000,000 to the coalmining industry?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): The Government have not yet considered the desirability of fixing such a time limit.

Mr. MILLS: Have the Government considered, among other applications of the Emergency Powers Act, the application of Regulation 13?

Viscount CURZON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement on the industrial situation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I shall be glad if my Noble Friend will repeat his question on Thursday next.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Are the Government fully seised of the great anxiety of the country on this matter, and can we rest assured that the Government will seize the very first opportunity of intervening so as to bring the contending parties together?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, the Government certainly are seised of the great importance of this matter. They have not lost sight of it or been out of touch with it during the Recess. At any moment, when they see a prospect of its being possible to reach a permanent settlement, they will bring the parties together.

DEFENCE FORCE AND RESERVISTS.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state when the Defence Force will be disbanded and the Reserves be demobilised?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The Defence Force will be disbanded and the Reservists will be demobilised with all possible speed as soon as the situation admits.

Mr. HOGGE: What necessity exists at the moment for the use of either of these forces?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member knows quite well that these forces are in existence in order to render protection and assistance to the civil power.

HON. MEMBERS: Where?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Wherever they are required.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Baronet inform the House of one place where they are required for protection now?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They have been required, I regret to say, in several places during the last week or two.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could not they be used to take over mines and collieries under Regulation 13?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not the object for which they were raised.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the total cost to date of the mobilisaion of the Reserves and of the Defence Force?

Sir R. HORNE: The estimated total cost to date of these services is £4,880,000.

SANKEY COMMISSION REPORT.

Major BARNES: 50.
asked the Prime Minister how many and which of the recommendations of the final Report of the Sankey Commission which the Government have accepted have been carried out?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the 18th August, 1919, the Prime Minister stated fully to the House the action that the Government were prepared to take after consideration of the conflicting final reports of the various members of the Coal Industry Commission. As, however, the course that we proposed did not commend itself to either miners or owners, the action that we have taken has been confined to giving effect, by means of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, to certain proposals on which there was a substantial measure of agreement among the members of the Commission, as, for instance, the establishment of a Department of Mines, statutory provision for setting up joint committees of owners and men, and the creation of a fund for the improvement of social conditions in mining districts.

Major WATTS MORGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the representations made by the Chairman was that the control of the mines was condemned?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member who put down the question (Major Barnes) asked how many and which of the recommendations have been accepted and carried out. That has been answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MURDERS AND OUTRAGES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 40.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now aware that John O'Connor, of Gloundaeagh, Farranfore, County Kerry, was arrested on 15th
December last whilst on his way to church and driven away in a motor lorry; that he was beaten while in the lorry, thrown from the lorry into the road, fired on, and wounded; that civilians then carried him into the house of Thomas Brosnan, Threegneves, Currow, Farranfore, where he was tended by the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan, of Killentierna, Farranfore; that four officers returned from Farranfore, to which place the lorry had proceeded, in a motor-car, and on ascertaining from the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan where O'Connor lay wounded, entered Brosnan's house and murdered O'Connor by firing three revolver bullets into his head; whether he is aware that the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan, Mr. Brosnan, and other eye-witnesses are prepared to testify to the foregoing facts on oath; whether an inquiry has been held; whether these witnesses were called; what was the finding; what action, if any, has been taken; and whether any compensation is to be paid to the widow and seven children of the murdered man?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest in the case of John O'Connor has completed its proceedings, and steps are now being taken to identify Crown forces implicated. It is not possible at this stage to say whether any arrest will be made, as this depends entirely on the result of the identification, but should any person or persons be identified by these witnesses they will be put under arrest and charged with murder or being accessories thereto. I will communicate the result of the identification to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman still a letter which I sent to him giving the name of the officer who, I was informed, was responsible for the murder?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not sure that I have that letter, but I will make inquiries to-day.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER - SHEE: 42.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he can give the House any further information as to the murders of John Hodnett, of Courtmacsherry, County Cork, who was murdered on his way to mass on Sunday,
the 8th May; of William Bransfield, of Carrighwohill, County Cork, who was murdered on Sunday, 8th May, outside his house; of Head-constable Storey, when leaving mass on Sunday, 8th May, at Castleisland, County Kerry; of Martin Scanlon and John M'Gawley, who were murdered on Sunday, 8th May, at Kilrooskey, County Roscommon; of William Simpson, an old-age pensioner, murdered at Enniskillen on 8th May; and of Constable Thon Hopkins, murdered at Dromore, County Tyrone, on Sunday, 8th May; and whether he is aware that, in the case of the attempted murder of Sergeant Butler, Royal Irish Constabulary, at Castleisland, his life was saved by the heroic action of Mrs. Butler?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As the answer to this question is very long, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: In view of the great increase in the numbers of murders of unarmed men, and even women in Ireland, has not the time come to increase the strength of the auxiliary police so as to deal with the assassins?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The auxiliary police are being increased every week.

The following is the answer promised:

The facts of these cases as reported by the police are as follows: John Hodnett, a farmer of Lislee, Courtmacsherry, County Cork, was shot by a party of Crown forces owing to his failure to halt when challenged, and he died the same day from the effects of his wounds. William Brantsfield, a railway employé, residing at Carrigtwohill, and a brother-in-law of an ex-soldier who was shot in the same village three weeks ago, was taken from his house and shot dead in the road in the early morning. The only other occupant of the house at the time of this outrage was the murdered man's mother, who is deaf and mentally feeble, and the police have so far been unable to obtain any reliable information which would lead to the detection of the murderers. Head Constable Storey, of Castleisland, was shot dead on leaving Mass, and Sergeant Butler, a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who was with him, was shot in the back and severely wounded. Both men were accompanied by their wives. The per-
petrators of these cowardly crimes effected their escape by mingling with the congregation coming out of church and up to the present they have not been traced. Martin Scanlon, an R.I.C. pensioner, and John McCawley, sub-postmaster, both of Kilrooskey, were dragged from their beds by masked and armed civilians shortly after midnight. The bodies of both men were subsequently found riddled with bullets fired at close range and each bearing a label "Convicted Spy. Tried by Irish Republican Army." Scanlon leaves a wife and large family. Search for the murderers has so far been unavailing. William Simpson, aged 71, was shot dead in bed at his house near Enniskillen. In this case a man living in the same house has been arrested on a charge of murder. Constable Thomas Hopkins, Royal Irish Constabulary, of the Dromore, County Tyrone, Force, while on leave at his father's house at Levasse, County Mayo, was shot dead by a party of about six masked men, when returning with his brother from a neighbour's house late at night. The murderers first asked if he was a Royal Irish Constabulary man and then took him about 500 yards from his brother, whom they had previously blindfolded and bound, and shot him with cold-blooded deliberation. The police are vigorously pursuing their inquiries, but no arrest has yet been reported.

SETTLEMENT TERMS.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a plain public statement of the terms he is prepared to offer to Sinn Fein?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not consider that any good purpose would be served by a further public statement at present.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are any endeavours being made to negotiate peace with the leaders of Sinn Fein?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Prime Minister made a public statement at this Table. To that statement I have nothing to add.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has anything happened during the Recess?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A great deal has happened of a very deplorable character.

GENERAL CROZIER'S ALLEGATIONS.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether the attention of the Government has been called to the dossier issued by General Crozier in which the charges made, and supported by many affidavits, that murder, arson, looting, and other forms of terrorism were practised by the Crown forces during the six months he held his Irish Command, and that resignation was forced upon him because of his determination to enforce discipline; and whether the charges also made that highly-placed persons in Dublin Castle endeavoured to arrange evidence bearing upon the murder of Father Griffin, and the Drumcondra and guard room shootings; and whether the Government will at once constitute a public and independent tribunal to investigate these terrible charges?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to statements appearing in to-day's Press by Brigadier-General Crozier, lately commanding the Auxiliary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary, making accusations of excesses by the forces of the Crown in Ireland, and especially of procuring of witnesses to commit perjury before courts-martial and courts of inquiry in Ireland; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have seen the allegations referred to. Nearly all of them refer to the period when General Crozier was himself in command of the Auxiliary Police in Ireland and responsible for their conduct and discipline. If the late commandant has any evidence of criminal acts alleged to have been committed by anyone in Ireland or elsewhere, it is his duty to produce such evidence. I shall consider the question of further inquiry when I see all the allegations. There is no truth in the allegation that this officer's resignation was forced because of his determination to enforce discipline. On the contrary, the discipline and efficiency of the Auxiliary Police have greatly improved since his resignation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If General Crozier submits evidence, who will be asked to examine it? Will it be the men who are implicated in these charges?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Anything brought to the Irish Office will be brought to me, and I shall personally examine any charges that General Crozier or anybody else makes.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In view of this discussion, and of the nature of the allegations made, will the right hon. Gentleman publish General Crozier's record, and show how it was that this officer was deprived of his commission?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not a fact that General Crozier has a very distinguished war record, and does not the right hon. Gentleman refuse an investigation into the action of his agents in Ireland on the ground of their very distinguished war records?

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for General Crozier's confidential reports from the first day he joined the Army?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that General Crozier commanded a battalion in the Ulster Volunteers before the War?

Captain REDMOND: Would not a public inquiry such as is demanded by my hon. Friend disclose all these alleged facts which hon. Members opposite are now endeavouring to place before the public, and why will not the Government have this public inquiry? Furthermore, in view of the statement that evidence may be given by any of these witnesses or people who are willing to give evidence, to whom and where can this evidence be given?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not relevant to the whole question, and the credibility of General Crozier, to publish his confidential reports in the War Office?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reference to the personal confidential reports of General Crozier, which are in the War Office, I shall consult with my right hon. Friend (the Secretary of State for War) as to whether it is desirable or right that they should be published.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not the case that General Crozier is using confidential statements which came into his possession in view of his position in Dublin Castle, and is it not therefore quite fair that the other confidential
reports about General Crozier should be published?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Were General Crozier's confidential reports examined before he was appointed?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Neither were Fry's.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of a question of that sort.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely you can answer that.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, unless the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary or the Leader of the House will give me an undertaking to give an early opportunity of discussing this question. If he will do that, I will not ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House now. But this is a matter casting such terrible reflections upon His Majesty's Ministers that I think, in justice to the Government and to those who are concerned, that these charges should be either rebutted or properly examined at the very earliest moment. Therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give me an opportunity of discussing the question at an early date, in which case I should be quite willing not to ask for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. The Government have purposely refrained from asking the House to pass the Chief Secretary's Vote, in order that we might have it available to put down for the purpose of giving an opportunity for a discussion of the kind which the hon. Gentleman might desire. My difficulty is that I am pressed to find a day for a great variety of questions. There are many promises outstanding. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to look into the matter, and communicate through the usual channels with the other parties. We will do our best, but as there are so many promises outstanding, I cannot assure my hon. Friend of a very early day.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but the undertaking which he has given is not sufficient to meet the urgency of so terrible an indictment of His Majesty's Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

UPPER SILESIA.

Mr. C. WHITE: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to confirm or deny the report that the French troops in Upper Silesia offered no resistance to the Polish insurgents; and, if resistance was offered, how many casualties were sustained?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): It would not be accurate to say that the French troops offered no resistance to the insurgents. The number of casualties among the French troops is given as three killed and six wounded.

Mr. WHITE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been arrived at as to the future of Upper Silesia as a result of the plebiscite?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question will be considered at the forthcoming meeting of the Allied Conference.

Mr. GLANVILLE: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information that arms have been supplied by the Polish Government or its agents to the Polish insurgents in Upper Silesia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the negative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the statements in English newspapers that there is continuous traffic in arms across the Polish frontier? Are they all untrue?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have said that the answer is in the negative.

Captain TERRELL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the small British Force in Polish Silesia has sustained any casualties as a result of the recent trouble and, if so, how many; whether any steps have been taken to strengthen it, and, if so, of what nature; whether any representations have been made to the Polish Government; and if inquiries have shown that it has connived at the recent aggression?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is at present no British Force in Upper. Silesia, though there are a number of English
officials in the service of the Inter-Allied Commission. Only one slight casualty to an English official has been reported. A force of four battalions of British infantry is under orders to proceed to Upper Silesia from the Rhine, and it is under contemplation, if possible, to increase this force. Urgent representations have been made at Warsaw by the Ministers of the three Allied Powers acting in concert. The evidence at our disposal renders it difficult to form a definite opinion" with regard to the last part of the question.

Colonel ASHLEY: In view of the fact that the Germans are now paying, or owing, for the British force on the Rhine, who is going to pay for these four battalions that are to be sent to Silesia? Have we to pay for them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly the Germans have not to pay, as part of the Army of Occupation on the Rhine, for forces which are no longer there.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I take it, therefore, that the British taxpayer has got to pay for them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When is it expected that these British troops will leave the Rhine for Silesia?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As soon as the trains can be prepared for their removal.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. KILEY: 55.
asked the Prime Minister the amount which has now been collected under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act; whether German exporters have refused to accept half of the price in full payment for their goods; whether, in practice, the whole price has been paid, and the Customs have demanded its equivalent payment of the 50 per cent. under the Act; and whether the payment is equivalent to 100 per cent. duty, and is paid by the British importer?

Sir R. HORNE: The amount received by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act up to the 21st instant inclusive was £19,000. I understand that in some cases British importers have paid the German exporters the full invoice price of the goods. As to the amount payable to the Commissioners in such a
case, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) on the 9th instant.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this £19,000 is being reclaimed?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not know of any which is being reclaimed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of it is being presented to the French Government?

Sir R. HORNE: None of it is being presented to the French Government.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of Germany's acceptance of the Allied ultimatum, the sanctions already applied in consequence of her refusal to accept the Paris Agreement will now be withdrawn?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot add anything to the very full statement which was made on the whole of this subject by the Prime Minister on the 5th May.

Mr. KILEY: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether, under the new reparation proposals accepted by Germany, the payment of 25 per cent. in respect of German exports will be demanded in respect of goods upon which payments of 50 per cent. are made under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act and similar legislation in other countries; and, if not, whether he can state how the discrimination between the different classes of goods will be made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will refer to the schedule of payments prescribed by the Reparation Commission and accepted by the German Government, he will see that the levy of 25 per cent. provided for in paragraph 7 (b) is not to be applied upon exports on which a levy of not less than 25 per cent. is applied under legislation of the character of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act. It will be for the German Government to make their own arrangements to exempt such exports from the levy to be made by them in Germany.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that during 1920 the average
monthly registrations of box and willow calf and patent leather from the Netherlands were £900 and £200, respectively, and from Germany £28,000 and £20,000, respectively; that in March, 1921, the corresponding registrations from the Netherlands were £106,000 and £34,000, whereas those from Germany were £6,139 and £9,726; and that leather experts in this country think that the leather in question was manufactured in Germany; and whether he is satisfied that the duty chargeable on this leather under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act has been duly collected?

Sir R. HORNE: The German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, takes effect only as regards goods imported after the 31st March, 1921. The danger apprehended by the hon. Member is guarded against by a system of Consular Certificates of Origin.

Captain W. BENN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the 26 per cent. to be collected under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act will be levied as an ordinary customs duty or in the same way as the 50 per cent. has hitherto been collected?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The 26 per cent. to be collected under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act will be levied in the same way as the 50 per cent. has hitherto been collected; but the German Government has now undertaken to repay the amount so collected to the exporter.

Mr. RAFFAN: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state in which of the Allied countries legislation similar to the German Reparation (Recovery) Act is now in operation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that legislation similar to the German Reparation (Recovery) Act is now in actual operation in France, Rumania, and Serbia.

Mr. RAFFAN: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will agree to the appointment of a Committee or Commission to inquire into the effect upon the exchanges of the liability for and payment of reparations by Germany, and of the liability for and payment of external debt by Allied countries, as well as the probable effect of the legislation to be founded on the safeguarding of industries Resolutions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not think such a Commission would serve any useful purpose.

EX-ENEMY SHIPS (SALE).

Mr. GILBERT: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the German ships handed over to this country have been sold; how many still remain unsold; what amount of money has been received by his Department from sales; can he state if any part of the money received by this country has to be repaid to any of the other Entente Powers; and, if so, can he state what proportion?

Sir R. HORNE: Two hundred and two ex-enemy ships allotted to the British Empire for final ownership have been sold; 85 merchant ships and 22 trawlers still remain unsold. The gross amount realised is £14,523,074. From this gross total there falls to be deducted expenses of repair, delivery, etc., and a considerable part of the purchase money is payable in instalments over a period of years. The net cash at present received by the Treasury is £6,000,000, of which £5,499,619 13s. 2d. has been appropriated in aid of the Vote for Advances for German Coal Deliveries, 1920–21, and the balance of £500,380 6s. 10d. has been paid to the Exchequer on account of the cost of the Army of Occupation. No part of the above amount will, so far as can be foreseen, have to be repaid by this country to any other Allied Power.

Viscount CURZON: Has any of these ships been re-sold to Germany?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I cannot tell at the moment.

GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have taken any steps to secure the extradition of the alleged war criminals who are charged with some of the most serious offences who have escaped from Germany, whose names are on the list for trial, and whether the British Ambassador has been instructed to make strong representations to Germany on the subject?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman's notice reached me so late that I have been unable to obtain the information required. I have to communicate
with the Attorney-General and see whether he is able to obtain it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question for Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the formation of the Egyptian Delegation which is to come to London to discuss the future relations between Egypt and the British Empire; and when the conferences are likely to take place?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that, as at present arranged, the Egyptian Delegation will consist of the following: Adly Yeghen Pasha, President of the Council of Ministers, who will also be President of the Delegation; Hussein Rushdy Pasha, Vice-President of the Council of Ministers; Ismail Sidky Pasha, Minister of Finance; Mohammed Shafik Pasha, Minister of Public Works; Ahmed-Talaat Pasha, ex-Minister and President of Native Court of Appeal; Youssef Soliman Pasha, ex-Minister. The exact date of their departure from Egypt has not yet been fixed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we be assured that there will be no change in the personnel of this Delegation in view of the action of the rioters in Alexandria or elsewhere?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That question does not arise. This is a delegation that has been formed by the Egyptian Government, and we have nothing to do with it.

Mr. MILLS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the person who conducted, or behalf of the Egyptian people, the negotiations which led up to this partial settlement has been excluded from any representation on this Delegation?

HARMSWORTH: I have nothing to add to what I have said.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EXPENSES AND INCOME TAX).

G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Ministers are obliged to seek
re-election when they accept higher salaries, he will consider the advisability of consulting the electorate before other Members' salaries are increased?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The allegation contained in the first part of the question is unfounded. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, when wages are going down in a great many parts of the country, it is the very worst time to propose that the salaries of Members of this House should be increased?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a matter for discussion, but it does not arise out of the question.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have an opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: At the earliest moment at which we can take the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 64
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government will reconsider their decision to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for the exemption of Member's salaries from Income Tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In accordance with the promise which I made in answer to similar questions on the 12th May, the House will have an opportunity of considering this matter before any action is taken.

Lord R. CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when this Supplementary Estimate will be taken?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, not at the moment. I am anxious to have a discussion as early as possible, but if the matter is to be left to the House for their decision, I think it is in the interest of the House and of everyone concerned that there should be some public statement of the grounds on which the Government made the proposal, whatever the view of the House may be after hearing the proposal. I am anxious that that explanation should be made at the earliest possible moment, because there seems to be a great deal of misapprehension about it, but I cannot at present name a day.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will it not want a new Clause in the Finance Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: When the discussion takes place, shall we be allowed to discuss third-class and first-class fares?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I conceive that any question relevant to the proposal can be discussed on the Estimate.

Mr. STANTON: Will hon. Members who are already very well-to-do be compelled to accept extra remuneration?

Major Sir B. FALLE: Can we raise the whole question of Members' salaries on this Vote?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What exactly is in order on any particular Vote is a matter for the Chairman of Committees, and not for me to decide, but I conceive that a Supplementary Estimate proposed to give effect to the suggestions I made the other day will enable hon. Members to raise any question relevant to those proposals, and to move a reduction in respect of the total sum proposed to be provided, in order to mark their disapproval of either of the proposals made by the Government.

Mr. STANTON: Could we have a list of all those who are subsidised by big companies?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO.

Mr. C. WHITE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister the reasons why, on the occasion of the appointment of the present Secretary of State for War, he decided that a Minister without Portfolio was no longer required; and on what grounds he has since changed that decision?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Experience has shown that in the present pressure of public work it is desirable to have a Minister without departmental duties.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When will the Supplementary Estimate be presented for this extra salary?

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs if he will state the present position of affairs in Persia; whether the recently concluded agreement between the Russian and Persian Governments is in force; what is the position with regard to the Anglo-Persian agreement; and whether the British troops have been withdrawn from North Persia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The position has not materially altered since the reply given to a similar question put by the hon. and gallant Member on April 5th. The reply to the second part is in the affirmative. In reply to the third part. I would refer to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith on March 21st. As to the fourth part, the British troops in Persia are in process of withdrawal, and their rearguard is now at Karind.

Lord R. CECIL: Will the Anglo-Persian agreement definitely come to an end shortly or not, or is it in a state of suspended animation indefinitely?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think it can be regarded as having lapsed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the agreement with the Persian Transport Company also lapsed?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA (BRITISH AND INDIAN TROOPS).

Captain TERRELL: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of British and Indian troops now in Mesopotamia; what reductions have been made since last July; what are contemplated; and whether there has been any trouble entailing military operations within the last three months?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As regards the first three parts of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on this subject on 12th May last. As regards the last part, the country has been quiet during the last three months, with the exception of slight tribal unrest in the Nasiriyeh area and among the Surchi Kurds in the Mosul Vilayet, which has called for military demonstrations on a small scale.

Captain TERRELL: Does that mean that there are the same number of Indian troops in Mesopotamia now as when the right hon. Baronet replied to me last time?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: replied with regard to British troops on the last occasion. There is a gradual reduction now taking place.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PUBLICITY BRANCHES).

Mr. HOGGE: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the number of officials attached to Government Departments for publicity purposes; what is the amount of the annual salaries paid to them; and what was the corresponding charge in the year 1913–14?

Mr. YOUNG: The publicity work of Government Departments before the War was done by permanent officials as part of their normal duties; the annual cost in salaries cannot be estimated. This procedure is still the usual one in most Departments, but a few Departments are now employing temporary officers on publicity work, largely in connection with services arising out of the War. The number of these officers, including clerks and typists, is at present 34, and the total of their salaries is approximately £25,400 per annum.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL OFFICE ESTIMATES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be prepared to make his statement on the Ceylon constitution, the Kenya constitution, East African currency, and the Rhodesian land and constitutional questions?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I do not contemplate making any statement in regard to the constitutions of Ceylon or Kenya, and I am not yet in a position to say when it will be possible to make any useful addition to the information already given about East African currency. As regards Rhodesia, the Report of Lord Buxton's Committee has recently been laid before Parliament,
and the action to be taken on it is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When is it proposed to have the Colonial Office Estimates for discussion, so that we can raise the question of the Ceylon constitution and of the Kenya constitution?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is the desire of the Government at an early date to provide a day for the discussion of the Middle Eastern question. I understand that has been discussed by the Leader of the House and those who represent other points of view. So far as the Colonial Office Estimates are concerned, they follow the usual rule as regards supply.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As the Middle Eastern question is under the Colonial Office now, will there be opportunity to raise the whole Colonial Office question on that day?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know; but if you are to deal with the Middle East it will take some time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why does the right hon. Gentleman wish to burke discussion of these constitutions?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and gallant Friend has no right to suggest that I want to burke discussion, even with so formidable an antagonist as himself.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the great importance of the two questions of East African currency and Rhodesian land and constitution, on the one hand, and the Middle East on the other, can the right hon. Gentleman by an arrangement, which is perfectly well-known, with the Chairman of Committees, arrange that we shall have a full discussion about the Middle East on the first day, and that on the second day we shall be able to raise the question of East Africa and Rhodesia, when both reports have been presented?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be quite ready to discuss all these questions, but whether Parliamentary time can be found rests, happily, elsewhere.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fact that both sides of the House feel strongly on these questions, will the right
hon. Gentleman approach the Leader of the House so that we can get two full days for discussion of these questions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We shall gladly consider that. In any arrangement of business we always try to meet the general wishes of the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a tendency to suppose that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies is more interested in the Middle East and does not take sufficient interest in the rest of the Colonial questions? He is never here to answer questions on general Colonial matters. May we, therefore, have an opportunity of discussing these questions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, I was not aware that there had been any criticism as to my right hon. Friend's interests. With regard to the second part of the question, I think that is covered by what I have already said, that we will do our best in arranging supply to meet the general wishes of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (POSTAGE RATES).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the Crown Colonies or Protectorates have adopted the proposals of the recent Postal Union Conference at Madrid with regard to increases of the international postage rates; whether it is proposed to make any alterations in the present postage rates between the Crown Colonies and Great Britain and foreign countries, respectively; and, if so, what alterations and when?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Pending the consideration by His Majesty's Government of the increased rates proposed by the Postal Union Conference, no communication has been addressed to the Colonies and Protectorates, and no decision has been arrived at in regard to any alteration in the rates affecting them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING INDUSTRIES.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether
the Board has drawn out a list of the articles to which the Second Resolution for the Safeguarding of Industries would apply under paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively; and, if so, whether he will issue this list before the Report stage of the Resolution is taken?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No, Sir. As was stated during the Debate on these Resolutions, it will be for the Committees to be set up under the Safeguarding of Industries Bill to advise to what articles the provisions of this Resolution should be applied.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Safeguarding of Industries Resolutions, and to introduce and pass a Bill founded upon them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what date it will be introduced?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is the hon. Member aware that we have spent already three days on these Resolutions?

Mr. WHITE: Not on the Bill itself.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Bill cannot be introduced until the Resolutions are reported, and passed by the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING SCHEMES (RENTALS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 35.
asked the Minister of Health how many representations he has received from tenants of buildings erected in connection with housing schemes alleging inability to pay the rents demanded by the various local authorities; and what policy he is adopting in dealing with such cases?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): Representations from tenants in favour of a reduction of rents have been received in a few cases only, and I am satisfied that the rents which have so far been fixed are not beyond the ability of the working classes to pay. The rents are fixed by local authorities in accordance with prescribed rules which fully protect the tenants against excessive charges.
The rents so fixed have ultimately to be approved by my Department in order that the local authority may earn the full Exchequer subsidy. In some cases a difference of opinion has arisen between the local authority and the Department and these cases are referred to an independent Tribunal for settlement.

Mr. INSKIP: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that 22s. 6d. is the sort of rent that an ex-service man ought to be called upon to pay for these places; and if that is the rent which is being asked, and it is largely due to the very large proportion charged for rates, will he consider any new arrangement for fairly rating these new houses?

Sir A. MOND: I do not know to what cases the hon. Member is referring. In the cases I have had brought to my notice the rents are very much lower.

Mr. INSKIP: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with cases where 22s. 6d. is being charged to ex-service men for new cottages will he consider whether any steps can be taken to fix proper rates for these houses?

Sir A. MOND: I will certainly look into the cases if the hon. Member will send me particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL BORING OPERATIONS.

Major KELLY: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether boring for oil is still continuing in Great Britain under a Government subsidy; if so, with what result; and when will the subsidy terminate?

Sir R. HORNE: Boring for oil is being carried out in this country by Messrs. S. Pearson & Sons, Limited, as agents for the Government under the agreement between the firm and the Minister of Munitions of 10th September, 1918, which was presented to Parliament in that year. Eight boreholes have been completed, of which one is producing oil in commercial quantities and the remaining seven are being closed down. Three other borings are still in progress. The date of the termination of the agreement must largely depend upon a settlement of the question of the ownership of the petroleum discovered, in respect of which
legal proceedings are now pending. In the meantime, expenditure is being reduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN CURRENCY.

Mr. RAFFAN: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether any measures have been or can be taken to prevent the German Government from still further inflating the currency?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The position of German currency is a matter for the German Government; but it would be the duty of the Reparation Commission, should the inflation of that currency render the fulfilment of reparation obligations impossible, to make such recommendations to the Allied Governments as might be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENT DUTY.

Mr. LYLE: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue Department has made any estimate of the cost of collecting the Entertainment Duty, which now falls upon the theatrical managers themselves?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. LYLE: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can analyse the receipts in the financial year 1920–21 towards the Entertainment Duty under the respective headings of theatres, music halls, cinemas, dancing halls, open-air sports, and miscellaneous?

Sir R. HORNE: Owing to the fact that a considerable part of the Entertainment Duty is collected by means of the sale of Government tickets and stamps, it is impossible at present to allocate the yield of the duty for 1920–21 amongst the various classes of entertainment mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two-thirds of the total comes from the cinemas?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Would the Leader of the House say what business the Government propose to take to-
morrow and during the remainder of the present week; also whether it is the intention to go beyond the first item on the Order Paper to-day, and, if so, what other Vote it is proposed to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: To-day we shall take only the Navy Estimates in Committee of Supply, not the Report stage.
As regards the business of the week, I understand there is a desire to have more than one day for the discussion of the Railways Bill. I am prepared to meet that wish, and it will be convenient, I think, that the discussion should go on from day to day. We propose, therefore, to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill to-morrow, to take the Railways Bill on Thursday, and to conclude the Second Reading on Friday.

RAILWAYS BILL (PROCEDURE).

Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon a question of procedure relating to the further stages of the Railways Bill, provided it passes the Second Reading. The custom of the House is that Bills dealing with private property should be sent to a Private Bill Committee. There are Bills dealing partly with private property which at the same time are partly public Bills. They have always been considered, as stated in Erskine May, as what are called hybrid Bills, and such Bills are referred, first of all, to a Private Bill Committee, where counsel can be heard, and are then taken in Committee of the whole House. There is a precedent for that in the turning over of the London Water Companies to the Metropolitan Water Board. The Bill went first to a Private Bill Committee, where counsel were heard; then it came back to this House and was considered here in Committee of the whole House. The same course was followed with the Bill dealing with the London dockyards. That Bill went to a Private Bill Committee and then to a Committee of the whole House. Those are examples within the last 15 or 20 years. This Railways Bill certainly deals with private interests; of that there can be no question. To a certain extent it is also a public Bill. Therefore I want to ask whether it does not fulfil the definition laid down in Erskine May and become a
hybrid Bill, in which case it should go first to a Private Bill Committee upstairs, where counsel can be heard, and then should come down to this House and be considered in Committee of the whole House. It might be considered—I do not express any opinion as to whether it is right or wrong—that if it is a Bill dealing with the whole of the railways it should be regarded entirely as a public Bill; but, if it is a Bill dealing only with some of the railways, I think there can be no question whatever that it is a Bill which should be dealt with as a hybrid Bill.
4.0 P.M.
If you look at Clause 3 you will see at once that there is an exception. The Great Western Railway is not dealt with as are the other railways. The other railways are formed into constituent groups and those constituent groups have subsidiary groups allotted to them. First of all they have to be formed into constituent groups. The Great Western Railway is a class all to itself and is made a constituent group in itself. Then, if you look at Clause 30, you will see that the Metropolitan Railway is left out of the Bill altogether. It cannot be argued that the Metropolitan Railway is merely an underground tube. It runs down into the country something like 40 miles. My hon. Friends below me say even 50 miles. Clause 30 exempts those railways whose rates have been fixed by special Acts of Parliament, and that includes, not only the Metropolitan Railway, but the District Railway, which also runs for a certain distance into the country, and, naturally, all the tube railways. I submit that this is a hybrid Bill, first of all, because it deals with private interests, and, secondly, because it does not deal with the whole of the railways but only with parts of the railways. Therefore, I venture to ask whether it ought not to go to the Examiners and be reported upon; whether, after Second Reading, it ought not to go upstairs to a hybrid Committee appointed partly by the Committee of Selection and partly by this House, and whether then it ought not to be considered by a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet gave me notice before the Recess of his intention to raise this question. That has given me an opportunity of consulting all the experienced authori-
ties of the House. I find that they are unanimous—and after my own examination I hold the same view—that this is not a Bill of the nature of a hybrid Bill, which should go to a Private Bill Committee. The precedents quoted by the right hon. Baronet, I think, do not apply. If he were to continue his researches, he would find some much nearer parallels to the present Bill. Let him take, for instance, any one of the Irish Land Bills. They certainly affected private interests, but they were Bills dealing with matters of public policy, and it seems to me that this Railways Bill is eminently a measure dealing with a question of public policy.
The right hon. Gentleman raises two particular points. One I admit. The Bill affects private interests, but so do most of our Bills—the Finance Bill in particular—but we do not send them upstairs to be opposed by counsel. Then he raises another point, about two railways appearing to be dealt with differently from the bulk of the railways—one with regard to a certain group, and another with regard to a certain Metropolitan Railway. It is not for me to say whether that be a right or a wrong policy. It may arise from geographical or from other reasons with which I am not concerned; but you could hardly have a general Bill applying to all the main railways of the United Kingdom, without differences of circumstance being taken into consideration. Therefore, I am clearly of opinion that this is a public Bill, and that it must go through the ordinary procedure of the House.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I say that it is a matter of common knowledge that the Metropolitan Railway was included in the original Bill. Therefore, it would be perfectly easy to include the Metropolitan Railway.

Mr. SPEAKER: Very likely the right hon. Baronet will propose to re-insert that in Committee?

Sir F. BANBURY: No, I should like to leave out all the railways.

IRELAND (GENERAL CROZIER'S ALLEGATIONS).

Mr. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance,
namely, the statements and charges against the Irish Administration appearing over General Crozier's name in this morning's Press.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot possibly accept that Motion. An allegation appears in this morning's Press, and the Minister in question has asked for time to look into the allegation. We should have Adjournments every day if allegations by persons which appeared in the morning's Press were to come under Standing Order No. 10. I wish the hon. Member had consulted me beforehand. I would then have pointed that out to him.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I would have done so, but I did not contemplate the possibility of having to do this, because I understood the answer of the Government would be to ask for time to make an investigation. May I call your attention to the fact that that is not the answer of the Government? The answer of the Government is a direct and emphatic denial of the truth of every one of these allegations. Therefore, I take it, that so far as the Government is concerned, they mean to refuse the request I made, which I think is demanded by the public opinion of the country, that a public and independent inquiry be made into charges which really are so terrible that the Government ought either to take the first opportunity of rebutting them or of investigating them under conditions which will be satisfactory to the public conscience. On that ground, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must again make a strong appeal to you to allow me to have this Adjournment for the purpose of getting this information.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that a request for a public inquiry into various allegations has been made quite half-a-dozen times during the current Session, and on certain occasions an Adjournment has been granted, where a primâ facie case has been laid before the House. Here we have only the statement of an officer recently in the employment of the Crown. I myself have not seen the statement, and do not know where it appeared. I think some much more specific and primâ facie case must be brought against the Government before a Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 can be allowed.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Of course, I bow to your ruling at once, and I hope you will not imagine that I am endeavouring to argue a ruling with you, but may I interpret your ruling as meaning that when adequate evidence which appears to demand an inquiry and immediate action is published, as it will be in a few days, I shall be in a position to renew my request for the Adjournment so as to secure immediate discussion?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, if the hon. Member can show a primâ facie case and negligence on the part of the Government to meet that case.

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I say that the primâ facie case which I thought was established was that a gentleman recently holding the position of a general officer had published what is described in the newspaper as a dossier with affidavits which professed to confirm all his charges of murder, arson and looting against the Government and their connivance in hiding these crimes.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would appear to be in the period in which he was a servant of the Crown. That point must be cleared up first.

Lord R. CECIL: I have not seen the allegation, but may I submit that it is of the utmost possible importance that charges of this very great gravity, if there is anything in them, should be investigated somehow or another, either by the High Court of Parliament or in some other way, without unnecessary delay.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask your opinion, Mr. Speaker, upon this matter? Is it not a fact that this officer resigned months ago, and if this matter was so definite and urgent, should not these charges have been made then instead of now?

Mr. SPEAKER: The House will understand that that is exactly where my trouble exists. We cannot spend our Parliamentary time in discussing what is in the morning's newspapers.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

Major - General Sir HENRY CECIL LOWTHER, K.C.M.G., for the County of Cumberland (Penrith and Cockermouth Division).

ARTHUR THOMAS LOYD, Esquire, for the County of Berks (Abingdon Division).

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Major William Murray; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hurd.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[11th ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1921–22 [Progress].

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND REPAIRS, AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,836,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants-in-Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): It is an old custom that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, when that office is held by a Member of this House, should present and defend Vote 10. For the first time in this Parliament, that office is held by a Member of this House, and, in presenting this Vote to-day, I am reverting to the old custom. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to make a short statement on the general question of Vote 10 and were to review, quite briefly, some of the principal groups under which the chief or greatest number of items fall. One of the first questions that naturally arises on the presentation of any Estimates to-day is how much is being asked for compared with pre-War days, but before making that comparison, I should like to point out that nearly all the money in this Vote is concerned with building and engineering operations, the cost of which, as everybody knows, has increased by nearly 240 per cent. We are asking this year for a total of £5,836,600. In 1914–15 the Vote for the same services was £3,595,500. That shows an increase over the last pre-War Estimate of only 62½ per cent., and, if the Committee will take into consideration the enormous increase in the price of everything affected by this Estimate, they will agree that is very satisfactory indeed. If everybody could come forward with an Estimate increased by only 62 per cent. they would be very pleased.
I would next ask the Committee to compare the Estimate for this year with the Estimate for last year. If hon. Members will look on page 97 of the Navy Estimates they will see various sub-heads ranging from A to O, and if they will look at the last two columns giving the increases and decreases they will see that on some Votes there have been increases and on others decreases. They will notice that for the first time there is given a very full description of the causes of the increases or decreases. That is done this year for the first time, and I hope that the Committee will find it convenient.
Compared with last year the net increase on every sub-head is £682,600. There is an increase of £932,970 under sub-head (b) New Works, Additions, and Alterations, and, as that more than accounts for the total net increase of the whole Vote, I propose to concentrate my defence on sub-head (b.) Before doing so, I should like to point out what large deductions have been made on items which were considered and which were put forward as vitally essential for the needs of the Service. Out of a total of £3,044,660 under sub-head (b), £2,496,660 is required for the completion of work which has been already voted by the House, and to-day I am asking for new works only to the amount of £548,000, that being on account of items which will total £2,446,040. This figure was arrived at by investigating proposals estimated to cost over £8,000,000. The Committee therefore will see that, as a result of the recent deductions and adjustments in the schemes asked for and put forward as representing what was urgently required, 70 per cent. of the suggested outlay was disallowed, and we have satisfied ourselves with only 30 per cent. of the amount that was put forward as urgently needed. A large proportion of the items under sub-head (b) fall under three groups. The first is stowage for oil fuel, the second welfare items, and the third the provision and extension of naval armament depôts. I want to take, first of all, the biggest expenditure, which is that on oil fuel stowage. The present policy of the Admiralty is to build ships to burn oil fuel only, and in a short time the Navy of this country will consist only of oil-burning ships. I do not think that in this year, 1921, there will be many people in this country who will contest the wisdom of this policy.
There are some hon. Members who make numerous speeches in this House, and, to my mind, a just retribution always comes to them, because sooner or later they are bound to be confounded by their former speeches. I have not been guilty of making many speeches in this House. The last time I opened my mouth here was in July, 1914, and it is rather hard that in the first speech I have to make since that time I find myself confounded by one of my very few former utterances. In pre-War days I did question the policy of oil fuel. In those days I had three arguments against it which I thought were good then, but which do not apply now. My first was that the oil resources of the world had not then been sufficiently explored to admit of a very wide policy of oil-burning ships. My second was that, as we were entirely dependent on overseas supplies of oil, it was very unwise to embark on any far-reaching policy of oil-burning ships before we had made adequate provision for the storage of oil in this country. Neither of those arguments holds good to-day. Even less does the third of my old arguments hold good. It was that we had in this country a priceless possession in a fuel that was cheap and abundant, and the supply of which would never fail—I refer to coal. I have had a calculation made comparing the prices of oil and coal. The Committee will understand that we have all sorts of different contracts in both oil and coal, and I have had worked out very carefully, the world flat-rate for oil and the world flat-rate for coal, and at the present moment, as far as we can see from our contracts, we are actually paying less money for the oil taking into consideration the respective calorific values. That is not the only advantage by a long way. Where you have to handle three tons of coal you only have to handle two tons of oil, and the handling of oil is much easier than that of coal when you consider that very often it can be carried out by means of a pipeline instead of by the most laborious process of filling coal bags, hoisting them on board and putting the coal down into an almost inaccessible stokehold. When you consider the amount of fuel handled every year by the British Navy, the Committee will realise the immense amount of labour, time and energy that can be
saved by the use of oil fuel. Further, the efficiency of oil fuel is very much higher than that of coal. I will only give the Committee one illustration. Destroyers, when they have to be refuelled, if they are coal-burning, must travel to some port and go through the laborious process I have briefly indicated. On the other hand, oil-burning destroyers have only got to go alongside a battleship, and in two hours they can be filled with oil and they are ready to go out again and pursue their duties. Another very important question in connection with the increased size of ships to-day is the amount of room that oil occupies. It is much easier to stow than coal, and although that may seem a small thing it is of vital importance to-day, when one of our greatest difficulties is that of fitting ships of ever-increasing size into existing docks by which an enormous amount of money is saved. Lastly there is the point of personnel, and that is one which speaks for itself. There is a large reduction of personnel in oil-burning ships as compared with coal-burning ships. If hon. Members could see the stokehold and engine room of an oil-burning turbine driven ship they would find it presenting a marvellous contrast with those in the ships of the old days.
I hope the Committee will concede the point that the oil-burning policy is a wise one, and is indeed the only policy which the Admiralty can pursue. If they concede that point I have then to ask for the money to meet the requirements of the stowage of oil fuel, and it is necessary to find the money under this Vote. What we are asking for may be divided into two parts. First we want to establish an Admiralty reserve at home. This was authorised by the Cabinet in 1919, and it is estimated the work will be completed in 1929 of building various places around the coast for the home reserves of fuel, and we are asking this year for a total amount of £958,000. Besides that we have naturally got to provide supplies for oil-burning ships abroad. The total reserve required for that purpose has not yet been estimated and it is hoped that it is one of the questions that will be discussed and settled at the forthcoming Imperial Conference. For the moment the provision which is included in the Estimate under discussion is to meet the ordinary peace requirements of His Majesty's ships while cruising in foreign waters, and the Com-
mittee will see on examining the Estimate that we are asking money for such places as Cape of Good Hope, Falkland Islands, Rangoon, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Sierra Leone, and Singapore. There is nothing strategic about these points at the present moment, they are simply to provide fuel for our ships on the ordinary ocean routes. The amount required this year for the foreign service is £428,000, and the total for the whole of the oil service is £1,386,000, an increase of £724,000 over what was required last year.
I next come to the provision for the welfare of the men of the Navy. The Admiralty have known for a long time that many of the existing arrangements for naval ratings in dockyards and other naval establishments are totally inadequate for the comfort of the men. The War prevented a great deal of necessary rebuilding and remodelling, and to-day there is a very big accumulation of work of this kind, the need for which is urgent. A Committee was formed in 1919 to consider the welfare of the men, and the proposals now included in this Estimate are to enable the more urgent works to be started. We shall want more money for this in the future, and I should like to take the opportunity of warning the Committee that with the present stringency of money we are only doing what we can. The larger items consist of adaptation of rooms for mess purposes, alterations of buildings to provide better sleeping, messing and recreation accommodation, and to improve the cooking arrangements for the crews of ships in dry dock, which is a very important thing and has been a long-standing grievance in the Navy. I am sure the Committee will not grumble at the inclusion in the Estimates of these items which are long overdue and which will materially assist the comfort and well-being of the sailors. The total amount I have put under this leading of "welfare" is £100,000.
The last point is that of Naval Armaments Depots, and the amount we are asking for is £94,000. Provision for the stowage of high-explosive material falls under three heads. The first is the creation of new depots. During the War the centre of gravity shifted up North, and we have made new dockyards. We have to provide accommodation for explosive material in connection with those
dockyards. The second head is the increased accommodation necessary in existing depots. The Committee will realise the enormous increase in the use of high explosives brought about by the experience of the War, and the consequent necessity for additional stowage. Take the case of mines. It was one of the things the British Navy was deficient in at the beginning of the War because of the stringency of money in old days. During the latter period of the War we were using enormous amounts, and we have got to have these mines ready and to have stowage for them. Then there are some forms of explosives, such as depth charges, which were not used before, and for which we have to find house room now. There are also bombs for air purposes which are practically new; war-heads and other things, all apart from the ordinary shells and cordite.
During the War, accommodation had to be found in a very hurried manner for a great many of these high explosives, and undoubtedly grave risks were taken, but we cannot permit these risks in peace time, and we are asking money to remove these risks or to reduce them as much as possible. The third head is protection for old depots, new and old alike. Not only has the quantity of high explosives in use altered, owing to War experience, but the quality has altered in a very marked degree, and nearly all the high explosives used now are far more powerful than those of the old days. These high explosives are liable to detonate if a fragment of shell or bomb is projected through their outer covering, and in connection with the possibility of air attacks that makes necessary a radical change in the arrangements for the protection of these explosives, I will only recall to the Committee two of the disastrous explosions which occurred during the War. One was at Silvertown in January, 1917, when 53 tons of T.N.T. detonated with the result that 73 men were killed, 900 were injured, and a large amount of destruction was done to property. At Halifax a much larger explosion took place when 2,600 tons of high explosive detonated, resulting in a death-roll of 2,000, and the devastation of two square miles of country. When we realise the proximity of some of our magazines at the present moment to large centres of population, I hope the Committee will concede the
necessity of paying a premium, even if it be fairly high, in the endeavour to secure the utmost possible immunity from such catastrophes in this country. That is all I propose to say in my opening statement. I have endeavoured to defend the one subhead under which there is a big increase. I should like to remind the Committee of the amount of increase on this Vote over the pre-War days, which is only 62 per cent. I hope to be able to answer any questions or criticisms that may be raised during the course of the Debate, and I trust that in these opening remarks I have not taken up too much time.

Captain REDMOND: On a point of Order. Would it be in order on this Vote to discuss the proposed closing down of dockyards such as Haulbowline?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I think not. That would have to be on the Admiralty Vote. This is a Vote for new construction, and I think the question of dockyards, as a matter of Admiralty policy, would have to be taken under the Admiralty Vote.

Mr. LAMBERT: After the very charming, concise, and lucid speech of my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Eyres-Monsell), we hope that he will speak oftener than once in seven years now, and I also hope that we shall hear speeches of a like character often delivered from that Bench. He has added much to our information, and I have never heard a Civil Lord's statement delivered with greater simplicity or a more frank avowal of having been sometimes wrong. I take note of the fact that the Estimate is £5,800,000, while before the War it was £3,600,000, and that the hon. and gallant Gentleman congratulated himself upon only a 62 per cent. increase. New works, I observe, in the Estimate amount to £3,000,000, and before the War they amounted to only £1,800,000. Even last year, 1920–21, the Estimate for new works was £2,100,000, which has gone up £900,000 this year. The question I ask—and I am always asking it from this Bench is, has there been a war, and is the German Fleet at the bottom of the sea? Why is it that we require this enormous expenditure upon new Admiralty works when the War, happily, is over, and the German Fleet, against whom we were preparing in 1914, is now at the bottom of Scapa Flow? In my judgment, the Government have
allowed the military, naval, and air experts to run away with the financial prudence that ought to characterise the Government's handling of finance, and I do not believe the country can stand this enormous expenditure.
I pass to the direct Vote that has been introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend, and as I was Civil Lord for a good many years, I know my way about this Vote pretty well. There is one thing I note, and that is that there are a considerable number of new depots. New depots really are the most extravagant form of naval administration. They require guarding and they absorb a large number of non-efficient fighting men, who must have their opposite numbers at the Admiralty, because every man who is in some depot in the country must have his opposite number at the Admiralty in order to check him and pay his wages, and so on. These new depots are costly to erect, especially at the present moment, and they have to be maintained and supervised, and the great reform which was initiated by the late Lord Fisher was the closing of a large number of what he called useless depots. I am sorry to say the Admiralty to-day are going back upon that policy, and we are having a number of small depots maintained all over the country. You, Mr. Chairman, I think quite rightly ruled that we cannot discuss dockyards to-day. I have said here before that we had six dockyards before the War and that we have seven to-day.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. When you, Mr. Hope, ruled that we could not discuss the question of dockyards to-day, is the right hon. Gentleman in order in introducing the very argument that he has always introduced on dockyards and endeavouring to frame his speech upon that statement?

The CHAIRMAN: I was waiting for the process whereby the right hon. Gentleman would connect his argument with the Vote.

Mr. LAMBERT: Because I happen to criticise the Naval Vote from the point of view of economy, the hon. Gentleman opposite always thinks me an enemy of the dockyards, and he is nearly always interrupting me on this point. I wish be would allow me to continue my argument. I am one of those who do not
really maintain my seat by using the taxpayers' money to bribe my constituents.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not given way.

Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend opposite can reply later. I realise that the Admiralty are about to close two dockyards, namely, Haulbowline and Pembroke.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No.

The CHAIRMAN: I ruled, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond), that that is a matter of Admiralty policy, which will be appropriate to Vote 12.

Mr. LAMBERT: Perfectly true, but surely on this Vote the Admiralty have announced that they propose to close Pembroke Dockyard.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No.

Mr. LAMBERT: It was announced in the First Lord's statement, and here you have a proposal to spend £500,000 on an oil fuel installation at Pembroke. Is that intended?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Yes.

Mr. LAMBERT: Then is the policy of the Admiralty altered, that it does not propose to close Pembroke Dockyard?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The building of the oil fuel tanks at Pembroke has nothing to do with the closing of the dockyard or not. There will be oil fuel tanks at Pembroke in any case.

Mr. LAMBERT: It is very difficult to argue whether you should have a very large oil fuel installation where there is not a dockyard. I cannot at present say whether it is right or wrong, but I should have imagined that if you proposed to put up oil fuel installations all over the country, at any rate they should be in close contiguity to where the ships have to be refitted and fuelled. If this £500,000 is to be spent on a tank at Pembroke and the dockyard is to be closed, it seems to me that public money would be better spent elsewhere. My hon. and gallant Friend has told us that he has a very large number of oil fuel installa-
tions in progress, and he frankly avowed—and I am very grateful to him for the avowal—that when he made his last speech in this House it was against us on the question of oil fuel policy. There again Lord Fisher was absolutely justified, and he had an uncanny insight into the future when he advocated oil fuel. We are told to-day—and this is a very important question of policy—that we are to have a reserve of oil fuel in this country. Would it be right for me to ask what amount of reserve you propose to have? If the Admiralty do not think it wise to answer, I shall not press the point. If you propose to have a reserve, it depends on the size of the fleet. Has the Admiralty decided upon the size of its oil-burning fleet in the future? I do not think anybody can say what is to be the size of the fleet in future, and therefore I would urge on the Admiralty to go very slowly with regard to the provision of oil fuel installation.
Have the Admiralty considered, too, the question of aircraft in the installation of these oil-fuel installations? Here, again, I differ from the policy that has been adopted. I think aircraft should be under the Admiralty, but have the Admiralty considered this question of aircraft in putting down oil-fuel installations? It is very wrong that one Government Department should act independently of the others. We have got three Services to-day, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and if they are all going to act independently of each other, the country will be landed into great expenditure. I observe that in the Vote there are new Estimates for oil-fuel installations at Jamaica; in the Falkland Islands, which is to cost £100,000; Ran-goon, £150,000; Sierra Leone, £70,000, and Singapore, £260,000; and my hon. and gallant Friend said, quite rightly, that we must expect a large increase in this Vote in the future. Is it really essential to build up an enormous oil-fuel reserve at these outlying points in the Empire at the present moment, when coal is very dear, when oil is very dear, and when the cost of building is extravagantly dear? If the Admiralty and the Government propose to prepare for the next war at once, all I can say is that the country must be ruined. We cannot go on preparing for the next war. If the
Prime Minister and his colleagues at Versailles were not able to ensure peace for more than a year or two, the world would be bankrupt indeed. Has this question of the defence of these stations at the Falkland Island, Rangoon, Sierra Leone, and Singapore been considered? Is it proposed to put up oil reservoirs like the great tanks we have got to-day down the Thames, at Glasgow, on the Humber, and at Portsmouth, and if so, how are they going to be defended? I assume that all the Admiralty preparations are made with regard to having an eye to a future war. A hostile cruiser would smash up an oil fuel installation in a few minutes. I am not sure that aircraft could not do it, and have the Admiralty taken into consideration the question of the defence of these oil fuel installations in the outlying parts of the world? It is a very important question, and I would be very glad if I could have an answer.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about bringing a tank steamer alongside a ship and fuelling her. Is it not possible that you could supply these outlying stations without erecting large costly installations? That is a point that occurred to me during my hon. and gallant Friend's speech. Of course, we must all agree that if the British Navy is to discard coal and adopt oil as the sole propulsive power of the Navy, there must be an adequate reserve. I claim that, during the Administration of which I had the honour to be a member, we tried to do that, because we took a controlling interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and I want to warn the Admiralty—I remember it perfectly well in my day—that if you have the whole of your ships burning oil fuel, unless you are very careful, you will be in the hands of a small number of people who control the oil fuel resources of the world. That is one thing you will have to consider very carefully indeed.
I pass from the question of oil fuel to come to the question of the explosive establishments. My hon. and gallant Friend told us—and told us truly—that at the commencement of the War we were short of efficacious mines. I agree we were, and no one, I think, regretted it more than the civilian members of the Board of Admiralty. But it was not due to stringency of money. One of the reforms I hope the present Board of
Admiralty will insist upon is that there should be a thinking Department, and that our men should have the very best instruments of war, if ever such a contingency again occurs. The Admiralty to-day have got a new explosive factory at Holton Heath, near Bournemouth. Is that going on? I see there is a considerable sum of money, £13,000, for police residences, and £100,000 for work in connection with plant to deal with cotton sliver. I do not know what that is, but I have no doubt it is something important. But here again, has the Government considered the whole explosive establishments of the country? There is a huge establishment at Gretna Green. Is that to be closed? The Admiralty used to have its explosives from Waltham Abbey. I simply ask these questions in order that there may be some co-ordination in the Government Departments, so that in the manufacture of explosives each Department shall not have its own factory, and thus involve a considerable amount of waste.
I refrain from asking about the capital ships. I can bring it in order by asking whether any alterations are proposed in the Royal Dockyards which come under Vote 10, but I do not want to embarrass the Admiralty in their policy in the slightest degree. Theirs is the responsibility. There is one subject to which my hon. and gallant Friend has not alluded, which, I think, is probably one of the most interesting things in the whole of the Vote. There is in this Vote a provision for a certain number of men to destroy the fortifications of Heligoland. My hon. and gallant Friend has not noticed that in his speech. I am delighted that we are destroying the fortifications of that hornets' nest. The item in the Estimates is
Commandant and Technical and Clerical Staff to supervise demolition of fortifications, works, etc., Heligoland, £6,400.
If it can be done for £6,400, it will be very cheap. These fortifications have to be destroyed, under the supervision of the principal Allied Governments, by German labour and at the expense of Germany. If that be so, I presume this will be balanced by the Appropriations-in-Aid. I am very glad indeed that these fortifications and military establishments and harbour at Heligoland are to be destroyed. Heligoland was handed over to the Germans without the knowledge of the Admiralty of the day, and it was a terrible
menace to our Navy during the late War. I hope that never again will these fortifications be allowed to be erected. Having made these criticisms—and I give them to the Admiralty as the result of the best consideration I can give to these matters—I do ask them to go very easily, very delicately, into the provision of the large item of oil fuel installation in distant parts of the Empire, believing as I do that in a year or two the cost of building, oil, coal and all these requisites will be immensely reduced. Meanwhile, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his admirable speech which should enable him to get his Estimates through easily.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I take exception to the enormous sum that is being spent on oil storage in home waters. What is the use of it? If this money were going to be spent in those parts of the world where we are likely to fight in the future—I hope we never shall, but there is a possibility of it—I should not take exception to it. Here is a sum of £1,500,000 in the Glasgow district of which £300,000 is to be spent this year, and then there is £500,000 at Pembroke. If we are going to build all these storage depots, I say the right place for them is at the strategic points of the future. I can only perceive the Pacific and the Atlantic as big enough to employ these four ships we are going to adapt to oil, and, to my mind, our depot in the Pacific, as near Japan as possible, or as near the United States as possible, I am sorry to say, is the place where we should have oil stores. There are very small sums being taken for such places as Singapore and Jamaica. I see nothing for Bermuda. I have already expressed my views about the building of capital ships, but if we are going to build these ships, and use them effectively, then the foreign depots are those which we should develop, and not those in the North Sea. We have got to get rid of this North Sea habit of mind, and we have to cultivate, I am sorry to say, a Pacific frame of mind—I regret we cannot use the word "Pacific" in the proper sense—I mean a warlike Pacific frame of mind. There is another point. I see that a certain amount is taken for the alteration of Locks C and D at Portsmouth. I should be very much obliged if the Civil Lord would tell us what docks there are in the United Kingdom, first, that will take the "Hood," and, secondly,
what docks there are out of the United Kingdom that will take the "Hood," and which we might have to use in case of war with the two countries I have already mentioned, and which I regret to have had to mention at all? It would be very interesting to know whether the ships to be built will go in the same docks as the "Hood." I do not, however, press that, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will answer for the "Hood," I shall be satisfied.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, "That Item B [New Works, Additions and Alterations, £3,044,660] be reduced by £10,000.
I would like to join in congratulating the Civil Lord opposite on the speech he made, but, if I may be permitted to say so, it gave me one or two shocks. I would like to know whether he deliberately used this expression. He was referring to the provision of these oil fuel depots in different parts of the world, and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down that they should be provided for one purpose only, and that is a strategical purpose. My hon. and gallant Friend said there was nothing strategical about this large expenditure of £7,000,000, because we are only voting something on account in each case. I think he went on to say that this was required for peace-time purposes of the Navy. Does he mean to abide by that sentence, or was it a slip? Is it the Admiralty policy, as naturally voiced by the Civil Lord, that these depots are established at this expense, not for strategical purposes at all, but only for peace-cruising work for the Navy? That is what I understood him to say. I take it the hon. and gallant Member adheres to that statement, and, if so, it gives me a very considerable shock, and I am quite sure it gives other hon. Members rather a shock, because the Navy exists for one purpose only, and that is for war. Any expenditure on oil fuel depots should be solely for use in a possible or probable war, and for no other purpose. I must say, if the strategical side of this matter has not been fully considered, someone at the Admiralty ought to be hauled over the coals, and very quickly, too. The hon. and gallant Gentleman excused the lack of mines at the outbreak of war owing to financial stringency at the time. As a matter of fact, I think we had not
mines because the staff were so ill-informed that they deliberately reported against their provision. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman turns to the record, he will find I am right about that. But if there was financial stringency before the War, what is the position now? Here we are burdened with debt and with unemployment growing, which will have its effect on our finances. If we are really voting on this Item B £3,044,000 not for strategical purposes, then I say it is a scandal, and I am very shocked indeed. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend, at any rate, will have seen the strategical side of things, in view of his distinguished service in the Navy before and during the War, and if he is voicing the views of the staff, I hope the First Lord will correct those views at the earliest possible moment.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I said there was nothing immediately strategic about these oil depots abroad. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the amount for which we are asking, he will see it is impossible with that amount of money to build up a large reserve. I pointed out that the question of the main foreign reserve would be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference and that we should have to ask for more money. At the present moment, this is only to supply the needs of ships burning oil fuel in foreign waters.

5.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was hoping that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would interrupt me and give me an answer on the point. I therefore take it that these depots have been placed in the position they are for strategical reasons. That being the case, I must point out to the Committee that we are spending over £6,000,000 on Rosyth. I do not want to develop that argument, but I note that the total estimate is £6,803,000 and the probable expenditure to 31st March, 1921, is £6,273,000. The total estimate has increased at Rosyth by £400,000. There are very adequate docks there, and very up-to-date machinery, but I do ask this simple question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Admiralty: are we cutting down expenditure at Rosyth? Rosyth was built specially to meet the German menace. Now that that German menace has been removed we should attempt to economise
there as much as we possibly can. I hope that that view is constantly before the Admiralty.
What, however, I particularly wish to raise is the question of the expenditure on Gibraltar. We are asked to vote the sum of £270,000 for oil fuel storage at Gibraltar, and I want to put this question very gravely forward. Before, however, I refer to it more particularly I should like to protest very strongly against the expenditure of further monies on Wei-Hai-Wei. We are asked to vote £8,000 for residences for senior officers and others at Wei-Hai-Wei. The place is unfortified to-day, as hon. Members possibly know. It is only a health resort for the Fleet, and in time of war, if, say, Japan was our opponent, Wei-Hai-Wei could not be held. That is a fact. To spend money on Wei-Hai-Wei is a useless extravagance.
However, to get back to Gibraltar. We are putting down a very big storage on the Rock for oil fuel. I take it is part of the plan of having fuelling stations on the routes to the East. Precisely as in the past we have had coaling stations from Gibraltar eastwards, we in future are to have oil depots as well as coal depots. Eventually, when all the ships are oil-burning vessels, there will be no coal depots, but simply oil-fuel stations. I am not questioning the plan. It is necessary for us to be able to move our ships. What I am questioning is the wisdom of choosing Gibraltar. First of all, Gibraltar, in face of a hostile Spain, would be indefensible. It is dominated by field gun fire to-day. It could be fired at from the mainland opposite, and the use of the harbour made impossible. I am aware that you could possibly place the tanks in a screened position, armour them, and so make them practically impregnable to all but the heaviest gunfire, but the ships that came in to oil would be exposed to the harassing fire of field guns and mobile pieces of ordnance of the greatest size which could fire at Gibraltar. Our relations with Spain to-day are of the very best, I am happy to say, and I hope that they continue to be So. Spain was the first of the neutral nations to enter the League of Nations. The feelings of the Spanish are most friendly, but we do not know, as the Prime Minister said the other day in his speech to the journalists, we do not know what combinations of nations the future will bring. There may be
new friendships, new alliances, new animosities. I submit that the policy of spending money on Gibraltar is wrong, in view of the development of modern artillery making it altogether indefensible. Some years ago there was an agitation against putting a dockyard on the western side of Gibraltar, but now every part of it is within the range of modern artillery, and that has completely altered the value of Gibraltar as a fortress, and also as a naval port.
This matter, I am sorry to say, is largely a matter of sentiment. A Government would need great courage to go to the country and suggest the exchange of Gibraltar for some other territory, or the selling of it, or even the returning of Gibraltar as a free gift to Spain. It would, I say, need great courage and every careful explanation. But this problem has to be faced some day. We have been brought up to believe that Gibraltar is an impregnable fortress. It is nothing of the sort to-day. Ask any soldier or sailor, and he will tell you that. We know its memories, its great history and traditions, and the number of regiments on whose colours Gibraltar is inscribed, but what we have now to consider in the matter is whether it is worth while spending the money suggested. Another fact is the artificial harbour is small. During the War convoys at Gibraltar had to anchor in the bay, for there was no room inside. No vessels were allowed inside except those requiring repairs. The bay has an immense depth of water, but there is only shallow water around the circumference in which ships can be moored at all. The place is very difficult to defend against the submarine. I was on the staff there during the War. We made no attempt to defend it. There was no netting across the harbour-mouth on account of the depth of water, and we relied on a few motor boats plying about. The Germans, for some reason best known to themselves, never made an attack on the shipping in Gibraltar Bay, and hundreds of ships waited about sometimes for their convoying ships. It was a most vulnerable position for torpedo attack. Submarines need never have gone inside. They could have taken long range shots in the moonlight. These, then, are two reasons why this matter should be reconsidered.
The third reason is this: Gibraltar has never developed for itself a trade. Smuggling goes on there; a very disgraceful trade in that way is carried on. It has never carried on much legitimate trade with the Spanish mainland. It has been run at a dead loss and great expense. What, hon Members may ask, is the alternative? Well, on the other side of the Straits of Gibraltar there is a town equal in strategic value to Gibraltar, much less vulnerable to attack and which I believe the Spaniards would most readily exchange. I refer to Ceuta. This place has a rich hinterland. Although the Spanish occupation has been unsuccessful commercially I believe we would have much more success in developing Ceuta as a commercial port. It could be made into a magnificent harbour. Its exchange for Gibraltar would, I believe, remove a rankling sore on the Spanish side. A while ago I described our relations with Spain as excellent, and so they are. But the Spaniards like the Rock. The soreness of 100 years ago is dying away, but there is still some of it remaining, and it can be used for propaganda purposes by our enemies, and would be if we were engaged in war again. It was so used in the late War. This matter, I suggest, should be carefully considered by the Admiralty and, of course, by the Cabinet, and I daresay the Dominions would wish to be consulted in the matter. I believe, however, that in the long run it would pay us to make the exchange. I know the first charges on the new place would mean additional expenditure, but I believe that by development there we would eventually get back what we spent, and in any case, I repeat, in war Gibraltar is now indefensible.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Hull into his very interesting reminiscences of his stay at Gibraltar. They showed very great local knowledge of the place, and no doubt will be of great use to the Committee. No doubt, also, the First Lord will, take notice of what the hon. and gallant Member has said about Gibraltar. I am afraid I must pass from that to discuss matters which I think are of more importance. If the Civil Lord will allow me to do so, I should like to congratulate him upon the very excellent opening speech he made—an example for other Civil Lords, because it was very
short, very much to the point, and very clear. The Civil Lord said something about Rosyth Dockyard. I understood that the point he referred to was one which we are not supposed to discuss to-day. Although the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) infringed the rule, I do propose to follow his bad example. Another point which the Civil Lord mentioned was the question of the Welfare Committee. I should like to ask whether the Welfare Committee is to be called together this year. I ask this because the members of the lower deck are very anxious to have the Welfare Committee called together as they have several points which they would like to bring to the notice of the Admiralty.

The CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt the hon. Member to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Civil Lord whether the Welfare Committee comes under Subhead B, because, in view of the Amendment moved, we can deal only with that Subhead?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Some of these items do.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I will not continue that argument and I merely suggest that an answer should be given as to whether the Welfare Committee will be called together this year. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) present. So often I have had to reply to his speech in his absence: to-day he has done me the honour of returning to the House. If he will allow me to say so, one is getting a little tired of that slogan "The German fleet at the bottom of the sea." The right hon. Gentleman has used the same phrase in every speech he has made. I can assure him that it makes no impression upon the Committee or upon anyone outside, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should cease to bore the Committee with vain repetitions. "The German fleet at the bottom of the sea" is only a platitude. It is a thing we all know and do not want repeated.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak very kindly of the late Admiral Fisher. When a man is dead we do not want to say anything against his memory. When the right hon. Gentleman says that it was the late Admiral Fisher who closed the establishments overseas during or
before the War, and when he endeavours to make a point of that in order to get some kudos from it, I am sure the Committee will allow me to say that during the War all those establishments had to be reopened. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to inform the Committee of that fact, possibly he did not know it, and probably he will be much obliged to me for giving him that information. The right hon. Gentleman, with that courtesy which he always shows, said the Member for a dockyard constituency must necessarily be a person who bribes the electors in order to be the Member for the dockyard.

Mr. LAMBERT: With the taxpayers' money.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That is a most interesting accusation coming from the right hon. Gentleman, because I remember that he was a Member of the Government in 1910, occupying the position of Civil Lord of the Admiralty. At that time I was standing for the constituency of Devonport, and the crucial matter before us was the closing down of the establishment by what was then called a Liberal Government. What happened on the eve of the election? A telegram came down saying that the Admiralty had decided to re-open establishment in the dockyards. That was the bribery which the right hon. Gentleman used in order to get his friends into Parliament, and to oust me, and now he accuses me of endeavouring to bribe the same electors because I object to him saying that we do not want to close down all the dockyards. With regard to Rosyth, we wanted a dockyard there when the War broke out, and it was not ready, if we had had that dockyard we should have been much better off during the War. I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman has a tender point in his heart for Rosyth. So have I, but perhaps it is in the opposite direction. We have heard something about cutting down certain figures in this Vote. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton is to cut down everything, and as long as he can make a speech upon cutting down something, he is fulfilling his part and carrying out the brief he holds for his own party.
It is a great mistake for the right hon. Gentleman to try and cut down the Navy
or anything that has to do with the Navy, because unless we have a Navy we cannot exist either as an island or an Empire. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to come here time after time and criticise the Government on the Estimates because they desire to spend certain money on the Navy he is doing the worst thing he can for his country and for the Empire, and I can assure him his efforts are not appreciated either in the House of Commons or outside. The right hon. Gentleman is interested in farming, and he was interested in the Agriculture Bill which was passed through this House to assist the farmers. I do not say to him he is bribing the farmers. Why then should he say to me that I am bribing the dockyard men? The whole thing is futile. A Committee of the House of Commons is not the place to indulge in these personalities and absurdities, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has so discredited the Committee as to introduce this subject at all. I have now dealt with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton in the way he deserves, and I hope he feels thoroughly castigated. I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has disappeared. The statement he made that he was shocked by this Estimate somewhat startled me. I was not able to find out what had shocked him except it was the fact that money was being, spent upon something which was very necessary. This Vote refers mainly to the question of oil fuel. I understand there is a desire that more stations overseas for oil fuel should be erected, but this is a matter which will be brought before the Imperial Conference where the whole question of oil fuel and capital ships and contributions to the Navy will be gone into at length. For this reason I do not think we shall serve any useful purpose by endeavouring to forestall what will be said at that Conference, and I think I shall best serve the interests of the Navy and the Empire and the views of the Committee if I now conclude my remarks.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I would like to make a few remarks arising out of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced this Estimate. I should like to congratulate him on the
very clear way in which he explained this Estimate to us, and I thoroughly endorse every word he has said about oil fuel. The hon. and gallant Gentleman alluded particularly to the destroyer question. Those who saw the work carried out by the destroyers in the North Sea during the War, I am sure, will appreciate the extreme value of oil fuel to that particular branch of the Service. I am sure I shall be supported by naval opinion when I say that the destroyers in the North Sea could not have carried out their work so efficiently but for the fact that they were running on oil fuel. The destroyers were out at all hours and in all weathers day and night, and it was largely a question of how soon they could come in and refill and get out again. It was a question of how many destroyers could accompany the Fleet and this matter was of paramount importance in view of the submarine menace, and it was only the fact that they could refill within a few hours with oil instead of coal that enabled them to go to sea quickly and thereby protect the Fleet. Everybody who knows the wonderful part they played in the North Sea and the extreme difficulty of the position will appreciate that fact.
But that is not all. The saving of work to the crews was an inestimable boon, and the crews could not have stood the work but for the fact that they could refill with oil so easily. I notice there is an item for storage accommodation at Port Edgar. I would like to know if the hon. and gallant Gentleman could tell us anything about the policy at that port. This was a base constructed for the exclusive use of destroyers during the War, and it was constructed at a very considerable cost. Oil reservoirs, tanks and pipes and depots were erected there. I have already elicited in this House the information that all is not well with regard to Port Edgar, and the trouble is, I understand, that there is a great tendency there to silt up. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that this port does not still suffer from this cause. So great was this trouble that some of our largest destroyers were unable to get in and out without touching the ground at certain stages of the tide, and I would like to know whether the port still experiences this difficulty which was a very serious matter during the War.
I notice there is another item for an oil storage depot at Rangoon, I would like
to ask if it is absolutely necessary to put down a depot at that place, because oil comes from Rangoon from the Burma Oil Company, and already they have large tanks and accommodation there. They have piles for mooring while taking in the oil, and would it not be possible for our ships to go alongside the Burma Company's depot, and take their supplies? It is a most difficult harbour because there is a terrific tide which makes it difficult to handle ships there. It is scarcely a harbour in the ordinary sense. There is a river two or three miles broad there with a tide of about eight knots running down, and it is very difficult for a ship to lie there. I rather wish my hon. and gallant Friend would give us a little more information as to the real necessity for an oil storage depot at Rangoon.
There is one other item to which I wish to refer, and that is that for an engineering laboratory at West Drayton. It is only a small amount, but a certain sum has already been spent on it. It is another one of those little establishments that are growing up, and I rather sympathised with the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) when he alluded to the increase in the number of small establishments. If the Admiralty are to have sufficient money to spend on the Fleet, they should be out to save every farthing they can on bricks and mortar, for that is a policy which runs away with a lot of money. While this establishment may be well justified, I do not understand why it was necessary to go to West Drayton. Could it not have been arranged for a small portion of one of the existing established dockyards to have been fitted up for this work, rather than that we should have a new depot at West Drayton? I have been rather surprised to hear what the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said on the subject of Gibraltar. I have a certain sentimental interest in that place, as I am ready to admit, and the day Gibraltar is given up would be rather a sad day for my family. At the same time, I would like to put the other point of view. The hon. and gallant Member suggested we should be in a much stronger position if we went to the other side of the Straits—to Cintra—and that we would be quite safe when we got there. But is it not a valuable restric-
tion on the policy of this country, and one which I should have expected the hon. and gallant Member to support, that we should be influenced in our policy—our world-wide policy—by certain questions? Looking at it more from the point of view that the policy of this country at some future date might be militaristic, and might prove very aggressive, would not Gibraltar constitute a valuable check, as this country would realise it would be extremely vulnerable to gunfire from the mainland. I do not think we need exaggerate in these days of modern naval warfare the menace to this country from Spain. Could Spain send an army to attack Gibraltar—could she attack it by artillery and at the same time provide the armies to give the necessary support? I do not know whether Spain is prepared to put armies into the field on the same scale as they were put in the late War, or if she would be able to maintain them as a country quite surrounded by British fleets. The late War has shown us the value of the blockade, and I very much doubt whether it is within Spain's capacity to wage war on such a scale, at any rate, against this country.
I agree with all that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull said with regard to the strategic value of oil depots. I think it is absolutely vital we should be assured on this question of the strategic necessity for oil depots all over the world. I know that the present proposals are not concerned with the question of strategy, but my hon. and gallant Friend, in introducing this Vote, indicated that more money would be asked for later on to deal with questions such as this. I hope that our Naval Staff is fully employed in thinking out this question, because we have to go in for a large policy, and our money must be wisely spent. We should not therefore go too far with the present policy until the strategic policy has been well-thought out. I do not know whether I shall be in order in alluding to the question of mines. It has been touched on by other speakers, and money is taken in this Vote for mine depots. It may not be realised that we started the late War with only 30 mines for the whole Navy. That shows that the matter had not had much attention devoted to it by the Board of Admiralty before the War. I am sure
that that regime has now passed, and that a different state of affairs prevails to-day, but it is an interesting point which should never be lost sight of that the British Navy went into the Great War with only 30 mines, and it is important to remember it, seeing that hundreds of thousands of mines were required. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give us a little more information upon the docking question. That is very serious, and I trust he will assure us on the point. While we may be to a certain extent deficient in graving docks, there are such things as floating docks. We have some that we built before and during the War, and we have others which we have taken over from the Germans. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to assure us that the floating docks we now possess, be they ex-German docks or docks of our own construction, can be adapted and altered so as to take ships of the very latest type. I do not want to press him to say much as to the ships we are about to build, but I hope he will assure us that the Navy can rely to the same extent as in the past upon graving docks on ordinary accepted plans. I have covered most of the points which have occurred to me on the Vote, and I hope the Committee will agree to pass it.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I do not intend to support the Amendment, neither do I propose to occupy more than two or three minutes. But there are one or two points I would like to raise in connection with oil fuel. I have been deeply interested in this question for many years, and over 20 years have elapsed since I got the present Admiral Bayley, then Naval Attaché at Washington, to come down to the Southern States and examine the fuel oil at Texas, because I believed that if our Admiralty could get sufficient fuel oil for the Navy they would be in possession of a cheap fuel and be able to get ahead of the world. We are now building ships to burn oil, and it is of course of vital importance to us that the Admiralty should do as they are doing, get such a supply of oil that it will never be found wanting for the Navy. I cannot help feeling, however, somewhat doubtful on the question of the establishment of these big oil-fuel depots throughout the world unless they are protected, because if they are not protected they would have to be given up in case of war. I want to ask the
Admiralty whether they have fully considered the taking of merchant ships or of any other ships and using them as oil-fuel depots abroad. It can be done, and there are to-day hundreds of thousands of tons for which work cannot be found. The ships could be bought quite cheaply; they could be sent out and kept filled with oil and used as fuel depots, and, what is more important, they could be stationed at places where naval and merchant ships could get alongside of them, and in cases where a vessel drew too much water to go into the dock the oil ship could be lying out in deep water and could supply her. It would be much cheaper than establishing permanent depots, as is being done at the present moment. Oil fuel is coming down very much in price. I am told by those who ought to know that it will be very much cheaper in the next few months, and we should be in a position therefore to get all we need. We could take the ships, put the oil into them and send them out wherever they may be wanted. I hope the Admiralty will consider that suggestion.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: I want to ask a question. At Portsmouth the Admiralty have always been very good in encouraging private work, and thus trying to lessen the evil of unemployment. We are all grateful for that. It is known there is a private firm—a well-known firm of shipwrights—started not very long ago at Portsmouth and doing private work, thereby keeping down unemployment. I want to raise a point in connection with that which is rather urgent. This private company—Framptons, Limited.—had an offer to repair or fit out a vessel of 20,000 tons, on which an expenditure of something like £20,000 would be required, and the job would, of course, provide employment for many people. It is an emigrant ship, and the firm wanted a berth at which she could be placed. I am told there is a berth at present occupied by an old monitor, which could be very easily removed in order to make way for this vessel, but if that cannot be done other berths could be found to enable this work to be undertaken. The officials in Portsmouth Dockyard have stated that this particular berth cannot be had, and consequently there is great danger that the work may be turned away from the place. Indeed, it may already have been done so. I
want to ask my hon. Friend if it is possible to make an arrangement for some berth to be made available, because otherwise it would be a great discouragement to this firm in regard to taking on future work that may be offered to them. I know it is work the Government is very willing to encourage, and therefore if the Department can see its way clear to appropriate some berth for this vessel it would be very much appreciated in the town.

Mr. MYERS: I want to say a word or two on this Estimate from a point of view which will not be considered quite orthodox on this occasion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we are to have ships of war it is necessary that the services required for them should be supported by this House. Further, I agree that while we have such ships of war the tendency in the direction of oil fuel is a proper one, having regard to the economies effected in time and labour and in cleanliness and utility. Therefore, the movement in that direction is on quite sound lines, but I would like to make inquiry into this matter in another direction. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that in a very short space of time the whole British Fleet will be composed of the type of vessel which consumes oil fuel, and I have some doubts—based on investigations I have made in respect of the world's supply of oil fuel—whether such supplies as are known justify a step of that kind. Expert authorities whom I have consulted suggest that the development of the oil resources of the world at present does not justify the step suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It would be desirable if we should be assured that there would be a certainty of supplies being available, having regard to the construction of the ships on the lines indicated. It would also be useful if we could be told that the ships, when constructed for the use of oil fuel, could be converted so that they could be again fired with coal. With regard to the danger of unreasonable terms being demanded for the supplies that are available, we cannot ignore the fact that those commercial and financial publications which are issued particularly for the purpose of setting forth the advantages and disadvantages of the production and distribution of oil have been booming, and we have been met on the streets
with glowing announcements as to the future of oil in its financial aspect. It is well known that ten or fifteen years ago the Government of the day were absolutely in the hands of a large armament ring, who extorted toll from the Government of the day for the work done for them in the construction of ships, armaments and the like. The extent to which that was done was clearly established during the War when the Government took upon themselves the responsibility of providing equipment of war, and were able to do it much more cheaply than it had been done by the armament ring hitherto. Is there not a danger at the present time of a corner or monopoly in oil, and are not the Government of the day likely to be penalised in the future by a ring or trust or combine in oil to the same extent as they were a few years ago in regard to armaments?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Does not the question of the cost of oil come under Vote 8, and not under this Vote, which only deals with the cost of putting up oil depots?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall): It does come under Vote 8. We are now discussing the Amendment to reduce Subhead B by £10,000.

Mr. MYERS: Subhead B, as I understand, includes the provision of these depots for the storage of oil in different parts of the world; but before we can store the oil we have to secure it, and the difficulty I foresee is the securing of it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That difficulty the hon. Member will be able to deal with when we discuss Vote 8.

Mr. MYERS: I bow to your ruling, Sir Edwin, and merely suggest that these are relevant considerations for the Government to notice. The proposal for the setting up of these oil stores' depots in different parts of the world brought a declaration from the hon. Gentleman which was noted by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). The hon. Gentleman went out of his way to suggest that these various points in different parts of the world where oil stores' depots are going to be set up were not selected for strategic reasons. I wondered why he should commit himself to an observation of that
character, because it draws public attention to the facts, which are in the opposite direction to that which the hon. Gentleman indicated. Like the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy), I was rather astounded to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to mines, depth charges, and bombs, and to hear him intimate that it was necessary under this Vote to make provision for the supply of mines, depth charges, bombs, and the rest of it, in order that we should be ready in the future when the use of these things became necessary. What a reflection it is upon many of our war-time pronouncements, that we now have to be ready with these weapons of destruction after so many pronouncements in quite the opposite direction.
Two very powerful arguments can be brought against the expenditure of money in these directions—one from the moral side and the other from the material side. We are to-day giving lip service to the League of Nations. It is incorporated in a Peace Treaty, and in the Covenant of the League of Nations there is a condition and stipulation in reference to the development of armaments on lines of agreement with other countries. And yet, in contradiction to the terms and provisions of that Covenant, we are going out of our way to provide for mines, depth charges, and bombs, upon which it is absolutely impossible to build a League of Nations or anything else that stands for that principle. From the material side, the country in these days cannot afford the luxury of this expenditure. I have been looking round in the Committee for those hon. Members who, day in and day out, are advocates of economy—who desire to cut down the supply of milk to nursing mothers, who desire to curtail our expenditure upon housing, who approve of circulars sent out from the Board of Education to restrict our educational facilities, who desire to curtail our public health administration. I wonder where those advocates of economy are to-day! I suggest without any reservation that, in the present conditions of our local and national finance, we cannot afford the "luxury of the expenditure set forth in these proposals. Every hon. Member who has spoken up to now recognises and accepts that this expenditure is for the purpose of the probabilities of warfare. We do not make provision for these things
without having some sort of idea that they may be required in the future. If the experience of the last few years has proved anything at all it has established the fallacy of the armed peace. It used to be recognised a few years ago that, in order to avoid war, we ought to be prepared for war, and we ought to build our ships and get together our naval and military equipment. The experience of the last six or seven years has disposed of that argument and proved it to be a fallacy.

Major Sir B. FALLE: The argument is that if you want peace you must prepare for war.

Mr. MYERS: I join issue with that statement. I declare from a deep sense of conviction that if we want war the best way to get it is to prepare for it. If we get our ships of war and our implements of war, war will most surely come out of the preparation that has been made. I object to this expenditure on material grounds because the country cannot afford it, and on moral grounds because it is not morally right having regard to the pronouncements we are making in respect to the League of Nations. I urge also that in making these preparations for naval or military hostilities in the future, we are most certainly moving in the direction of creating an atmosphere which will make necessary the use of these implements which we are providing.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Myers) has asked whether the supply of fuel in the world is sufficient to justify us in embarking upon the policy of oil-burning ships, and also whether we are taking steps to buy oil at the cheapest possible price. I wish I could follow him into that fascinating subject, but it is entirely out of my province. It does not come under this Vote. All I can say is that I think the world supply is sufficient, and I can assure the hon. Member that the utmost is being done to get oil at the cheapest price, and in many cases, successfully, although I do not pretend to say a word about our contracts, and indeed the Committee would not ask me to do so. The hon. Member said, "First of all get your oil;" but in the case of oil, unfortunately, you must first get your storage. You have to find somewhere to put it, and it is
very difficult to find storage for oil unless it is very carefully prepared. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into the very high question which he raised, and which is really the question whether we should have a Navy or not. That is a subject which had better be left until the discussion on the First Lord's salary, upon which those high and important problems can be dealt with. At the present moment I am dealing with practical affairs of bricks and mortar, and I shall try to keep the Committee on that material level if possible. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lambert) complained of the general expenditure, and asked, "Is there a war?" That is not the question to be asked. The real question is, "Is there a Navy, and is there to be a Navy?" If there is to be a Navy, Vote 10 has to provide the housing for that Navy all over the world, and while a Navy is necessary, the bricks and mortar and the engineering works for which we are asking under Vote 10 are necessary too. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to give him some figures with regard to the total stowage of oil, but I hope the Committee will not press me for information in that direction, having regard to our contracts with oil firms.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked questions with regard to the Air Service and the protection of oil fuel, and whether we are working in conjunction with the Air Service. If the Committee will look at page 7 of the First Lord's Memorandum on the Navy Estimates, they will find there a paragraph which answers the right hon. Gentleman. As he is not now in his place, I will not read it, but it does show that we are in very close touch with the Air Staff and with naval air developments. The right hon. Gentleman went on to recommend the keeping of oil in tankers afloat rather than having the tanks ashore, and in this, I think, he was rather joined by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Sir A. Shirley Benn). Really, however, to keep oil afloat in tanks is the most expensive form of stowage that could possibly be imagined. It is estimated that for the cost of keeping oil in a tanker for four years you could build the necessary permanent tanks ashore. The experts, who have carried out many experiments, say that it is very difficult to set fire to oil fuel. With regard to
defence, all sites for oil tanks are selected with the approval of the Imperial Defence Committee of the War Office, who are responsible for shore defence, and that Committee is satisfied that the tanks can be protected in the positions in which we propose to place them.

Mr. LAMBERT: A tank might be hit by a shell.

6.0 P.M.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: A tanker afloat can be hit by a shell just as easily as a tank ashore. You might save the oil in a tank by running it into a trough on shore, but you cannot possibly save it if it is carried in a hulk. My hon. and gallant Friend (Rear-Admiral Adair) complains of our spending too much money on home reserves of oil. This has been gone into very carefully indeed. During the War we were once or twice in a most serious position for want of oil owing to not having proper storage in this country. That is a thing we must avoid in the future. My hon. and gallant Friend thinks we should rather expend the money on oil fuel tanks abroad. That will be done soon and we are waiting for the forthcoming Imperial Conference before the total reserve abroad is finally decided on My hon. and gallant Friend went on to ask me to give him a list of the docks which will take such large ships as the "Hood." We have three docks at Rosyth, at Portsmouth we have one and another could take her with slight alteration, the British Commercial Dock at Liverpool, the Gladstone Dry Dock and a dock at Quebec called the Champlain Dry Dock. We have besides that some floating docks. We have three large German floating docks. At present they are not large enough, but two of them are capable of being made large enough to take ships of the "Hood" class.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: There are no docks out of the United Kingdom except at Quebec?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: No. I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) for his courtesy in writing and telling me the points he was going to raise. He complained first of all of the expenditure on the dockyard at Rosyth, but I have just given a list of the docks which form a very large proportion of the docks in the world that can take these ships, and that is
really why this large expenditure is being pursued. I am not going into the question of high policy that the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised with regard to Gibraltar. I am dealing only with practical policy, and that is a point which it is not for me to decide, but Gibraltar will always be of the greatest strategic importance to the Navy, and any proposed expenditure there or at Malta has been closely scrutinised and no works are being undertaken that are not necessary for the efficiency of the Fleet. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed to reduce the Vote on the question of the oil tanks at Gibraltar, and the reason I understood him to give was because Gibraltar might be of no use to us in time of war, but I have explained two or three times that this expenditure is necessitated because we want oil instead of coal. Ships call there that burn oil and, war or peace, we shall want oil fuel there. It is required in peace time and as long as we keep Gibraltar we must keep oil there. The only other question the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised was with regard to the expenditure at Wei-Hai-Wei. The expenditure we are asking is a continuation service which has been approved by the House and is nearly completed. What happened at Wei-Hai-Wei was this. One of the chief surgeons afloat was made medical officer ashore during the War, and when he got ashore he condemned several of the buildings which had been housing various people, and when those people returned after the War they found their houses pulled down. We have been obliged to build some sort of cover for those officials and that explains this expenditure. My hon. Friend (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) spoke of the Welfare Committee. I am afraid that is altogether out of order on this Vote and I should be very wrong to pursue the subject. My hon. Friend (Sir T. Bramsdon) sent me a letter which I got as I came into the House. I have tried to go into the question but I cannot get hold of the details. I will have it looked into and I will write and give him full particulars. I hope now the Committee may see its way to let me have Vote 10.

Mr. T. WILSON: I notice the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to this as a bricks and mortar Vote and I should like to ask him a few questions. It is a large Vote for new works. I am not quite cer-
tain whether the present is the best possible time for entering into large expenditure on bricks and mortar. First of all many of these works will require a considerable number of bricklayers, and bricklayers are extremely scarce, and those responsible for housing schemes are crying out for them. If it were possible to postpone the erection of any of these buildings in the interest of the housing of the people we should be well advised to do it. I am not complaining at all of the proposals to improve the amenities of the staff at the various depots, but I suggest that it may be possible to postpone the erection of some of the buildings. I should like to ask whether in the case of schedule price contracts any provision is made for a reduction of the prices if the cost of labour and the price of materials come down materially, and whether any of these buildings are being erected on commission, on the same lines as many buildings were erected during the War. It would be far better to have them erected under lump sum contracts, or at any rate under schedule price contracts, provision being made for a reduction of the price if the cost of materials and labour comes down. I am afraid in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department, as well as in others, they do not take very much notice of this at the time they sign the contract. I sincerely hope none of the contracts are being carried out on the time and line system. I would also suggest, in connection with the engineering staff, that it is quite time some steps were taken to reduce the amount paid to these pretty well-paid people. The total amount for salaries is, roughly speaking, £105,000 and the bonus comes to over £69,000. I think there is room for economising in that direction.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The question of bonus is not one for the Admiralty. It is fixed by the Treasury, and I think it will be coming down very soon. We are keeping away from schedule prices as much as possible, and we are getting on to the fixed price contract in every case we can, and we are getting away from time and line as soon as we possibly can. We are doing the absolute minimum in the building direction. We have cut down nearly £8,000,000, which were considered absolutely essential, to £2,000,000. I am sure the Committee will realise the difficulty
and the very real and necessary calls we have to meet, but we are keeping down expenditure to absolute necessities.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to press the matter of Gibraltar. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not really replied to the point, but I am sure he is interested in the matter, as I am, and that it is engaging the attention of the staff. I hope the Government will be courageous on this question, as otherwise we shall go on keeping obsolete monuments of this sort when their utility has long passed. I should like to ask about one other item on the Vote. This is a very substantial sum that is asked for and money is very short, and it is the duty of any hon. Member to suggest any saving he can. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, if we are going to have a Navy of a certain size, we have to have docks, harbours, barracks for the men, workshops and storage for munitions, and, once having decided that we are going in for the good old system of rivalry in, armaments, we cannot grumble at the amount of Vote 10 as regards the expenditure on necessities for the fleet. I quite accept what he says when he assures us that the expenditure on bricks and mortar has been cut down as much as possible. There is a saving that could be made, I hope, without loss of efficiency. Unfortunately, however, it is one of those sentimental questions about which people get very hot, and therefore we go on spending money on a service which is not needed to anything like the same extent of years ago. I refer to the question of the expenditure on coastguard stations. Up and down the country in all sorts of places we are apparently putting up new buildings or improving new buildings at a total cost of £148,000. This year we are only spending £48,000 of that amount, but it is an item in a very heavy Vote. Is it really necessary to continue putting up new coastguard stations? The coastguards are very popular, and rightly so, as part of the coastal inhabitants of the country. They look very well walking about with their telescopes, and so on. In the old days they did good service in preventing smuggling, and they are occasionally useful now. As the late Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir James Craig) used to tell us, they bury dead bodies, they notify the authorities of wrecks, and they claim all whales cast
up as the property of the King; but for war purposes the coastguards are really obsolete. The question of coast watching could be done by aircraft much more efficiently. We are voting £17,000,000 this year for the Air Service, and I think we should make a saving in the coastguard service. There are certain functions of the coastguard which really belong to the Board of Trade, and that part ought to be put on the Board of Trade Vote and not on the Admiralty Vote. The naval part of the coastguard service, in spite of its very fine traditions in the past, is obsolete. The late Admiral Lord Fisher—my admiration for whom is shared by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert)—attempted to cut down the coastguard service, but failed because he found that the vested interests which had been created round this service were altogether too formidable.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: He cut them down.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not to anything like the extent he might have done. He did away with the old obsolete coastguard cruisers, but he did not cut down the shore establishments, and it is for that service that we are now asked to vote £141,000. To-day things have altered. In the first place we cannot afford luxuries. We could in those days, because the country was rich. To-day the country is poor. The country was not poor in Lord Fisher's days. It is now heavily in debt, and many of its inhabitants have the greatest difficulty in living. Further, the Air Service has been developed, and can be relied upon with its aeroplanes to do coast watching in war time to a much greater extent and far more efficiently than can be done by the coastguards. The only thing that stands in the way of abolishing the coastguard service is sentiment and vested interest, but the need is so great that I ask for an assurance from the hon. and gallant Member, who has been very helpful to the Committee, that the coastguard service is not being kept on for sentimental reasons or for selfish reasons—because that is all that vested interests represent—and that not one penny is being spent on the service more than we can afford. Every penny should be spent for the purpose of improving the fighting efficiency of the Fleet, and money spent on the Coastguard Ser-
vice could be better spent in other directions. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Viscount CURZON: I should not have intervened had it not been for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I do not in the least agree with him in regard to his criticism of the coastguard service. I know of a case of a coastguard station which has been demobilised on the south coast. I am told that its personnel has been taken away, and if you go into any of the public-houses in the locality and you ask about the milk trade coming over from France, you can get champagne, duty free and pretty much all you want. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] I have not had an opportunity of investigating the matter thoroughly, but I believe the statement to be true, and I only quote it to show that the coastguard service is important. You cannot do away with the coastguard. Parliament is putting tariffs on many articles which come into the country, and I have no doubt that smuggling will increase, and we shall have special need of the coastguard in this respect. Therefore, we ought to act very carefully before de do anything to interfere with the coastguard. To suggest that the work can be done by aircraft is to delude the Committee. Aircraft on a very fine day may do a lot of coast watching, but how will they operate in a south-westerly gale or in foggy weather? We do not want to spend any more money than is necessary on bricks and mortar, but it will be a very bad day when we do away with the coastguard service.

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: I take it that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull did not want to do away entirely with the coastguard service.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: He did.

Colonel LOWTHER: I understood him to mean that where aeroplanes could be substituted for the coastguard services aeroplanes should be used, and I think he is absolutely and entirely right in that. What the Noble Lord (Viscount Curzon) has just said does not influence me in the least. He said something about champagne coming in duty free on a wet night.
I think it would be better on a dry night. I do ask the representative of the Admiralty to take into consideration the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I join in the protest against what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. To attempt to do away with the coastguard stations would not commend itself to Members of the Committee, and would not commend itself to anyone outside. When the hon. and gallant Member talks about aeroplanes taking the place of the coastguards he must be dreaming. That would involve the question of starting and landing places for the aeroplanes, and that would involve large sums of money, in addition to the cost of the aeroplanes. If we are to have air stations all round the coast, it will mean an enormous amount of money being spent upon aeroplanes and aeroplane stations, compared with the very small sum which is expended on these very necessary coastguard stations. Let hon. Members bear in mind the useful work which is performed by the coastguard, and at the same time let them remember that a position in the coastguard is a reward for service in the Navy. These are positions which men in the Navy look forward to, just as men in other professions look forward to berths which give them emolument and a house to live in. The coastguard station provides a house and a little garden for the man who has served his time in the Navy and done good work for his country, and he continues to do good work for his country by watching the coast. As the Noble Lord has pointed out, it may be that in the future we shall require the coastguard stations more than we have done in recent years. I do hope that there will be no giving way on this point, and that we shall keep our coastguard stations intact.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) put forward the argument that the coastguard service interferes with the fighting efficiency of the Navy. That is not strictly true, because the coastguard service is a pensioner service, quite apart from the fighting efficiency of the Fleet. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member or the hon. and gallant
Member (Colonel Lowther) quite realised the number of duties that the coastguard is expected to carry out. At the present time I am Chairman of a Committee which is going into the question very carefully. We are going through every coastguard station on its merits, to see if it can be closed. Sometimes we have asked for reports from the Commanders-in-Chief. Sometimes a Commander-in-Chief says that a station is not wanted for naval purposes. We then approach the Board of Trade, and ask them their opinion—because we do a great deal of work for the Board of Trade in the coastguard service—and if they say it is impossible to close the station, we have to keep open that station. We are looking at this matter with the utmost possible care. The principal reason for the coastguard service is to provide a means of communication between the naval authorities and ships and vessels at sea, and aircraft are not suited for these duties generally, particularly on account of their limited powers in darkness and bad weather. I hope the Committee will realise the multifarious duties that are required to be carried out by the coastguard. I will only name a few—boarding ships in connection with the collection of revenue, the prevention of smuggling, bad weather look-out for wrecks, manning the life-saving apparatus, etc. I am sure the Committee will agree with me that these duties are unsuited for aircraft. The question will be looked into, and if any economies can be effected they will be very closely investigated.
The hon. and gallant Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) asked me a number of questions. He asked about Port Edgar, and suggested rather an alarmist rumour that the harbour was silting up. There is no difficulty in maintaining the required depth by dredging, and the policy of the Admiralty is to do that, so that it is available for naval purposes. He also asked me why it was necessary for the Admiralty to build oil tanks at Rangoon, when the Burma Oil Company had large tanks of oil on the spot. I think the Committee will agree with me that it is most desirable to be free from oil companies; that it is very much better to be quite independent and to have oil of our own If we have tanks out there we can buy from the Burma oil people when the price suits us. It would be most ex-
pensive to provide tanks for keeping oil afloat. It is estimated that you can build storage ashore for the same amount of money that would be taken to keep oil in a ship four years. If you keep oil in a ship four years it will cost as much as it will cost to build permanent tanks ashore. The Noble Lord also asked me a question about West Drayton, an establishment which was taken over during the War, and it is now being used for a very interesting experiment in connection with a heavy oil engine. It is most desirable that we should keep this experiment to ourselves. A double-acting engine is being used which it is expected will give from 1,200 to 1,300 h.p. with 300 revolutions. It is expected that very valuable information will be got from this. The design is a very large one and cannot be housed in the present laboratories on account of restricted room. The requirements of the new engine will be met by the erection of a new bay alongside the existing bay and that is the money we are asking for.

Question put, and agreed to.

VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY.

Motion made, and Question Proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £7,821,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: I desire to call attention to a grant which is made by the Admiralty to the members of the seamen's branch and not to the stokers. On the 17th of February I put down a question asking whether members of the sea branch were entitled to a new kit or a sum of £26 in lieu thereof, while the same privilege was refused to the stokers' branch. I drew attention to this subject again on the 17th of March. The reply was to the effect that it was easier to get stokers than seamen. During demobilisation the Government got rid too quickly of the members of both classes. Then they had to take them on again and that required the giving of this privilege of a new kit to members of the seagoing branch. Apparently it is easier to get stokers than seamen, so the Admiralty gave that privilege to the seamen, but refused it to the stokers. The hon. Gentleman can understand what discontent
this has caused to members of the stoker class. It is not right to give a privilege of that kind to one class and not to the other. My hon. Friend may not be able to answer the question at this moment, but I have never yet received an answer to my question of the 17th March. If my hon. Friend is not able to answer me now perhaps he will be good enough to make enquiries and write me a letter in reply.
Another question to which I wish to call attention refers to the reefer jacket given to petty officers of more than four years' standing. This creates a great deal of discontent because this reefer jacket is only granted to petty officers provided that they have four years' seniority. It is difficult to know why that line was drawn. I can only imagine that it was on account of the question of expense. If so, I would ask my hon. Friend whether he cannot see his way to take steps to allay this discontent, because petty officers cannot understand why only men of four years' seniority should obtain this privilege, while petty officers under four years' standing have to wear the ordinary blue jacket, and their position is not shown and is not realised when they go abroad, whereas the reefer jacket is a distinguishing characteristic. If my hon. Friend would do justice to both these points I should feel grateful.

Mr. AMERY: On the first point, I understand that, as my hon. Friend himself suggests, the early issue of kit to seamen was made as an emergency issue, in order to deal with an unforeseen shortage. I am not sure that that shortage exists any longer, or that this special issue is now being made. I will look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend, as he suggests. On the other question, I am not without sympathy with the point of view which he has put. Undoubtedly, when senior petty officers are given that privilege, it seems logical that it should also be granted to the others. Of course, sometimes it is better to have half a loaf than no bread, and in view of the financial situation it was felt when this reform was first introduced that it should not be applied to all petty officers. It would have entailed another £100,000 initial expenditure, and no inconsiderable annual expenditure. This is one of the matters which I promise
my hon. Friend to look into very closely, in order to see if we can carry out his wish.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the promise which he has made, and I think he will find on making inquiries that it would not cost anything like the figure which he mentions.

Question put, and agreed to.

MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £720,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £389,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £465,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask what facilities exist at present for blue jacket boys of certain educational attainments to sit for the examination for special entry as cadets? In addition to the training establishment at Dartmouth, we also have a system of entering naval officers direct from public schools at a rather later age. These young men from public schools sit for examination and soon after the Armistice it was possible for some blue jacket boys who got on sufficiently well in school to sit for the examination with some chance of passing. Though I say boys from public schools, yet any lad can go forward from any school for this examination. The idea was, I suppose, to get most of them from public schools. Many of these boys have come from the less known public schools and there have been cases of blue jacket boys trained in the ordinary council schools, then going to sea and afterwards sitting for this examination. I am sorry
to say that this possibility was rather cut down by the action of the Admiralty itself. I raised this matter in 1919 in this House. The reply from the Government Bench at that time was not sympathetic. They said that the way of promotion from the lower deck was through the mate's class. The mates are taken later in life and have not the same chance of promotion as if they entered the officers' ranks as midshipmen, and there was this loop-hole for the exceptional boy from the lower deck. Do the Admiralty still permit these boys to sit and give them facilities, because if they do not I think they are making a great mistake?
We live in democratic times. In the past naval officers have been recruited exclusively from one class. That policy is no longer possible to-day. The class from which officers are drawn should be the aristocracy of brains and physique throughout the country, and no question of family or finance should give any advantage to any small section of the population. I commend this view to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). He has at heart the need of a great and expensive Navy, because the dockyards then will flourish like the roses, and the roses in Devonport may have to look for their water and their dew one day to a Labour Government, and he may find it advantageous to encourage the democratic point of view in recruiting officers for the Navy. It did not need the War to show that officers can be drawn safely from all classes, but the war has made it more manifest. I know that the great majority of naval officers of to-day, at any rate the thinking officers, the coming generation, the people who will rule over the Navy to-morrow, are very willing to see the door of entry into the officers' class in the Navy thrown open wide to all sections of the population. The mate system of recruiting from the lower deck to the commissioned ranks is good to a point, but you want something more. The door should be thrown open to any boy who has ability, who enters the Navy through the training ships as a bluejacket boy, to sit for an entrance examination to become a midshipman.
Speaking generally on this educational Vote, I do hope that the Admiralty, in spite of the financial stringency, are considering the abolition of fees for Dartmouth. To-day only the wealthy can send their sons there. The widow of an officer
killed in the War cannot afford to send her sons to Dartmouth on the officers' widows' pension. That is wrong. There are, I know, certain numbers of service cadetships, but they must of necessity be awarded by influence, and it would be much fairer if the State undertook the whole cost of tuition at Dartmouth. Then any boy of requisite ability could enter there. In the long run a widening of the field of selection, I believe, would raise the standard of officers.
I want to raise the question of the present situation of the Royal Naval Staff College at Greenwich. We have heard a great deal in this House and in another place recently as to the need for a thinking department in the Navy, a real war staff. I believe that that is appreciated in Whitehall, that the course given at Greenwich is good, and that great care is taken in the selection of candidates for the course. But I have a criticism to make, and it is as to the policy of maintaining the staff college at Greenwich at all. In the first place, much of the most valuable part of a staff officer's course is comprised in the discussions that take place out of the class altogether, on problems engaging the attention of students. At Greenwich you are near London, and in normal times there is a good service of trains. Human nature being what it is, the students there, naval officers who have perhaps had little opportunity of seeing the capital of the Empire, naturally take advantage of the facilities for coming up to London to spend their evenings. That is very bad. The nearness of Greenwich to London is probably one of the reasons why certain senior officers in high positions at the Admiralty favour Greenwich as a place for the staff college, because they can have their families in London and come up to town nightly.
Another thing I would urge is the great need of closer co-ordination with the Army and the Air Force. That can best begin by bringing the staffs together and letting them work out combined problems. It would be much better if the Naval Staff College were situated at or near Camberley. There are certain people who say that you must keep a nautical atmosphere, and that there is some salt water at Greenwich. Others say that if the college is not to be at Greenwich it should be at Portsmouth, where it was
in the old days. There is a much stronger reason for having it at Camberley, which would bring it in close touch with the military and the Air Force. I do not think the extra cost would be great. The buildings at Greenwich are venerable and historic, but they are expensive to maintain. I have been on a course there, and know something about the place. The great bulk of those in the Navy who take an interest in these matters are with me in feeling that the staff college should not be at Greenwich. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman in replying will give us more comfort on this point than the right hon. Member for St. George's Division (Mr. Long) gave us last year.

Mr. G. BARNES: I am not qualified to speak on the last topic mentioned, although it seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down has made out a good case for the staff college being brought into closer contact with the other branches of the service. I wish to support his plea in regard to entry into the other branches of the Naval Service. I took a considerable interest in this matter many years ago, and I am glad to know that the position now is very much better, from the democratic point of view, than it was then. It used to be the case that the entry of a boy into the executive branch involved an expense of considerably over £100 per annum, and that there was no other way of getting into the executive branch. Parents who can afford to pay £100 a year or more for a boy at 13 years of age are not very numerous. They are about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. of the community. The old system, therefore, was very bad, inasmuch as it narrowed the field of selection, and although we have in the Navy a very good naval officer due I think very largely to the fact that boys are taken at a very early age for training, yet however good an officer may have been when he was drawn from the old and narrow circle, it is obvious that he might have been better had the circle been very much wider. I am glad to know that the circle is now wider than it was. The fees are now less than they were. There is the advantage to the widow of an officer who can place her son for, I think, £40 a year, and there are the young fellows from the public schools entering. It is satisfactory to
find that the circle has been widened considerably.
I suggest that we might go a great deal further still. I support the plea for the complete abolition of fees. In the lower branch, that is to say, in the branch which feeds what might be called the artificer and technical class in the Navy, fees have been abolished. Boys are drawn now from the elementary or the secondary schools, and they are trained as artificers. They are given a very good training, a very much better training than that obtained by the average boy on entering an engineering shop. That is done for nothing. If it is right to train the artificer it should also be right to train the executive officer at the public expense. If it is necessary to do it in the one case it is even more necessary to do it in the other, owing to the greater degree of responsibility that rests upon the executive officer compared with the artificer. I want to put a question in regard to the entry of these boys into the artificer class. I do not know whether it is so now, but it was the case some years ago that the selection was made only from the school, and I think it was confined to the continuation schools. I do not object to a standard. Make the standard sufficiently high to ensure that you get the best boy possible, so that public money will not be spent unnecessarily. Is it now the rule to confine the selection to those who are attending continuation schools? If so, it is a wrong principle. The boy who goes to a continuation school is the boy of parents who are a little better off than the average working man, and I want the average boy of the working man to have the same chance as the boy who is sent to a continuation school. Is it merely an educational standard that has to be satisfied, or is there any of this caste business in drawing only from the continuation schools? If there is that caste principle, I want to see it abolished.

7.0 P.M.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is most interesting to me again to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) upon a subject that is a very old one to him and not unfamiliar to myself. I can remember the right hon. Gentleman advocating the same views in 1910 and 1911 and I think up to 1916. In those days the right hon. Gentleman used to take about three-quarters of an hour in emphasising the necessity
for these reforms. To-night he has managed it in a few minutes. That shows how we are progressing. The hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy) seemed to think that he was making a suggestion to me in his speech. The hon. and gallant Member has been a very short time in the House, although during that short time I think he has managed to make more speeches than any Member at present sitting in the House. That shows his ingenuity, but I protest against the hon. and gallant Member putting to me as a suggestion that with which I am perfectly familiar, and with which I was familiar, I will not say when he was at school, but when he was at sea. I am most anxious to see boys rise from the lowest position in the Navy to the highest position, and I always joined with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) years ago in supporting the views he expressed. Then my right hon. Friend sat where he is sitting to-night, but I was on the other side of the House, and I believe I sat in the seat now occupied by the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy). I am quite in accord with what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, so far as he referred to opportunities for boys to rise in the Navy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to imagine that there will be a different constituency awaiting me in years to come from that which I now represent. Though he supposes that the side which he so well represents will probably defeat me, I have no hesitation in saying I do not think they will; at any rate, it is quite open for them to come and try. Whether that be so or not, I shall continue to support what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman have said with regard to the need of giving every facility, so far as education goes, to every boy in this country who shows, by his brains and his ability, that he can rise to the highest position in the Navy. In conclusion, I just want to put the hon. and gallant Gentleman right—because he is sometimes wrong—on the point of roses in Devonshire. I assure him that the roses in Devonshire are very much superior to any sort of flower that grows in Hull.

Mr. AMERY: I will not pursue the floral part of the argument, but I may say that, like my hon. Friend who has just sat down, I am very largely in sympathy with the speeches which have been made this afternoon on that point. As regards the particular matter of the artificer training, I understand that the Admiralty have always worked in closest touch with the educational authorities. I will assume, therefore, that the suggestion of inducing candidates to go to continuation schools was introduced purely from the point of view of securing better education and better qualifications. I will certainly look into that matter, and I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) that nothing in the nature of caste should stand in the way of the selection of the fittest candidates for these positions.

Mr. BARNES: May I interrupt my hon. Friend. I do not object to the continuation schools so far as they are evening schools, but I rather think he will find that a selection is made from the day continuation schools. Therefore that must necessarily exclude a very large number of boys.

Mr. AMERY: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I will look into it and inform him as to the result of my inquiry. As to the general question of cost, I should certainly also like to look into the matter of fees paid at Dartmouth. I would, however, remind hon. Members that not only have these fees actually been reduced, but that the reduction is in fact much greater than appears owing to the great decrease in the value of money. A number of people can afford £75 or £40—and that £40 is not given by favour but wherever parents up to a certain total number are in difficult circumstances—that £40 represents a far smaller sum of money than £40 did before the War, and is within the range of a much wider circle of parents. I will not, however, go further into that point. With regard to the matter of special entry cadets from boys already in the service, which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I will again confess that I sympathise very largely with his point of view. I do not know what answer was given by a predecessor of mine speaking from this
Box two years ago, or what very real practical difficulties may stand in the way of his suggestion. Speaking from what I know of the Army, however, I would say that I believe the view of those who have studied the question of promotion from the ranks in the Army, is that the earlier the promotion is made the fairer it is to the individual and the better in the interests of the service. Therefore, on this purely general ground, although I cannot in the absence of specific information go further than that, I frankly say that I sympathise with the point of view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
There is one other point which is of the very greatest importance to the future of the naval service, and indeed of all the services. It was raised by the hon. and gallant Member when he suggested the desirability of the Naval Staff College being in closest physical juxtaposition with the Air and Military Staff Colleges. He pointed out that such juxtaposition brings about interchange of thought and ideas on the whole problem of our Imperial defence, and that it is essentially a problem of combination of all the three elements. There I am heartily in agreement with him. I think the First Lord referred to this matter not long ago in the House of Lords, and the whole Board of Admiralty are in agreement with him as to the desirability of bringing about this close communion and intercourse between the Naval Staff College, the Military Staff College, and the Air College. The only difficulty that has stood in the way for a time—I am putting it quite frankly—is the question of expense. The putting up of a college is a matter which costs a considerable sum of money. Including the equipping and furnishing it would run into five figures, certainly, and at this time we are anxious to avoid, if possible, all bricks and mortar expenditure until such time as we may get the same results for, I hope, considerably less money. Therefore I trust that the Committee will not press for the immediate carrying out of this particular suggestion, but I can assure them it is one with which the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Board of Admiralty, and, if I may speak for myself, I am heartily in sympathy.

Question put, and agreed to.

SCIENTIFIC SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £449,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: On the subject of research I want to raise one point. During the last 25 years we have had numerous cases of spontaneous combustion of cordite on board ship. During the War two vessels were actually blown up—one being a first-class ship, the Van-guard—owing to the spontaneous combustion of cordite. I wish to raise this question now, so that when we come to Vote 9 I shall be able to get a thorough answer. I would ask who is responsible for improving our propellant and is the cordite going to be so improved that there will be no risk in future of losing our first-class ships through spontaneous combustion?

Mr. AMERY: This matter, on the present arrangement of our Estimates, is really one which ought to be raised on Vote 9, Sub-head G, which deals with the explosive factories at Holton Heath and so on, at which special scientific research is carried on. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will excuse me if I do not follow the subject further on this Vote. I can assure him that this matter is of immense importance and that the Board of Admiralty do attach the greatest importance to full scientific research and to making the explosives we employ not only the most powerful in the world, but as reasonably safe as we can.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I will raise the question again on Vote 9, and I hope I shall then get a satisfactory answer.

Question put, and agreed to.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £580,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

Viscount CURZON: I wish to raise one or two questions with regard to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. It has been promised by the right hon. Gentleman's
predecessor on at least two occasions that men serving in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve should not be worse off than men in the Territorial Army. I believe the position of the two forces is very analogous, though I do not know much about the Territorial Army. The scheme on which the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve is now founded was practically entirely based on that of the Territorial Army. The latter provides that no man should be put to any personal expense through attending drills, inspections, and so on. The Territorial Army has the Territorial Force Association, which has certain funds at its disposal and which are used in the interests of the force. I believe that in certain cases these funds are used to defray the travelling expenses of men attending drill. I wish to ask whether the £5 grant, which is made to every man of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve under certain conditions, is intended to cover his expenses for travelling, or whether a special grant will be made for this purpose? It would be very unfair that the men in one force should suffer through having to pay their travelling expenses whilst those in another force got those expenses.
With regard to the question of rating, the right hon. Gentleman said something about the rig of petty officers in the Navy. I am sure he would not wish any distinction to be drawn between petty officers in the Navy and the various reserves when they go to sea. It is very important that they should be on the same basis, and that the petty officers in the Reserve should be able to go into the petty officers' messes on board ship and that no invidious distinction should be drawn against them. A request was made to the Admiralty some time ago that the petty officers should be allowed to wear fore and aft rig on the same basis as the Active List. It is hoped that this privilege, which has been granted to the Navy, will be granted to the Reserves, subject to the conditions and qualifications laid down by the Admiralty. Another matter, very important from the point of view of all reservists, is the question of boots. The Admiralty have refused to make any issue of boots to the Royal Naval Reserve. This is very unfair indeed, because when these men go to sea they go in the ordinary private boots, and you have only got to get your private
boots into an inch or two of salt water and they are pretty well ruined. The men have nothing else to wear unless they pay for boots out of their own pockets. Supposing they had to turn out with the men in the Navy, who are wearing service boots, there would be a very unfair distinction, and it would lead it to be said that these men were not smart. It would also prejudice recruiting for the Navy, because, although there are distinctions in uniform between them and the men on the Active List, ordinary persons cannot draw a distinction. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give us some assurance about this matter. It is very unfair to put these men to very great expense in order that they may serve their country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to ask what truth there is in the statement which appeared in the papers yesterday, made in a speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Mid Down (Sir J. Craig) that there is to be a drill ship stationed in Belfast Lough, and that a corps of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve is to be established there. No doubt the hon. and gallant Member opposite has some knowledge of this. What strikes one at first, and what surprises me very much to hear is the fact that there is no Ulster Division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. Is this going to be the beginning of the Irish Navy which we have held up to us as a terrible bogy in case of certain eventualities. I do not wish to discuss legislation, but this is a matter of administration, and it would be desirable to know if the North of Ireland Parliament is going to be allowed to form its own naval force, are they going to pay for it, and will the same course be adopted in regard to the Southern Parliament?

The CHAIRMAN: The sum mentioned in the Estimate is proposed to be granted by the Imperial Parliament and not by the Parliaments in Ireland.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inform us whether this Vote is to be relieved of any charge in accordance with this new policy which has been explained to the electors of Mid-Down by his predecessor in the Admiralty. I am sorry to say I will have to disturb the harmony of this very pleasant discussion by pro-
testing against the heavy expenditure involved in the calling up of the Royal Naval Reserve in connection with the present crisis. I have done this before, and I take the opportunity of doing it again. During the Recess I visited one of the defence force units, and I found living with them a number of naval ratings. They all seemed very happy and contented, and to be having a very good time indeed, but the calling out of the naval reserves in connection with the present industrial dispute has cost the country a great deal of money, and it is a use of the Navy the objections to which I have previously urged and must repeat. A case might be made out for calling up the army reserves when there is unrest in the country, but the naval reserves stand on a totally different footing. I would like to know from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is it to be part of the regular policy of the Government in future that in the case of industrial disputes the Royal Naval Reserve and the immediate class of the Royal Fleet Reserve are to be called out? If so, it should be explained to the men before they join. The Royal Fleet Reserve are bluejackets, and the understanding on which they join is that they are to be called up only in case of the danger of war. Therefore I go so far as to say that it is a breach of faith to call them up on an occasion like this. When a protest was made before against this unprecedented use of the Navy, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had the temerity and boldness to explain that because naval ratings had been landed to put down riots among the negro population in some part of Western Africa it was justifiable to march them through colliery districts in Wales on the occasion of an industrial dispute. I daresay that when there are no other forces available the Navy may have been used abroad to put down trouble in colonies, but when you have a military force able to back up the civil authority I do not think the Government is justified in bringing the Navy into the matter at all. A man enlisting in the Army knows he can be called upon to assist the civil authority, but that is not the case in the Navy. Before the War we had definite instructions from the Admiralty on this matter. I was commanding a ship before the War, and I remember that we received instructions not to intervene in industrial dis-
putes at all. Now, every time there is a great strike or the threat of a strike, the first thing the Navy knows is that all leave is stopped. I mentioned that I saw during Whitsuntide a party of these men, and that they all seemed very cheery. They came from a cruiser which was refitting at Chatham, and the time a ship is refitting is the time which the officers and men have for a little well-earned leave. In this case here they were kicking their heels with nothing to do except to take part in concerts, but with the possibility of having to do the most unpleasant work a disciplined man can be put to, and that is putting down trouble among the civil population, with the consequent estrangement of the Navy from the general mass of the people. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will think of some better excuse for this misuse of the Royal Navy than the fact that in the past landing parties of sailors have been employed in the West African Colonies to put down trouble among negroes. There may have been an emergency on the present occasion, but will he give us an assurance that in the future men who join the Royal Navy Reserve and the Royal Fleet Reserve will be employed to defend the country and not the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's class?

Mr. AMERY: I need not say that I demur very strongly to the suggestion contained in the closing words of the hon. and gallant Member. As to the particular question he raises, which has been discussed at considerable length already, I will only say, as I said on a previous occasion, that it is the duty of every citizen to help in the maintenance of the law and it is more particularly the duty of those who by virtue of their discipline are better able both to enforce the law and to observe that restraint which is so necessary in dealing with occasions of civil disturbance. There is no question as to the undesirability of using the Army or the Navy or any of His Majesty's Forces in industrial disputes. It is only when, as in the recent case, a situation arose which involved not a dispute between one class and another or one section or trade and another but which threatened to involve general lawlessness and serious trouble that the Government felt bound to call at once for the preservation of order on those best fitted to maintain order, and in view of the magnitude of that crisis, to call not only upon the
Army—which is naturally called upon first to support the civil power, as it is usually the means most at hand—but also to call upon the Navy. As I have said before in other parts of the world where soldiers have not been readily available or available in sufficient numbers, the Navy have come forward and performed this very distasteful duty willingly and readily. I trust most sincerely that emergencies of the character which we have just come through will not occur again and that it may never be necessary again to call upon the Navy or even the Army to intervene in these matters, but certainly no Government could give a pledge that it would refuse to make use of all the disciplined elements at its disposal if the need arose. The hon. and gallant Member has also referred to a matter of which I have so far no official cognisance and which I have only read about in the Press, namely, the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member, my predecessor in this position. He has put forward a request that a training ship should be placed at Belfast. As the Government of Ireland Act is drawn, there can be no question of such a training ship or of any military or naval establishment being set up by the Northern Irish Parliament. It is simply a question whether it is desirable for the Imperial Government to have a training ship in that part of the United Kingdom. That matter will no doubt be duly considered by the Board of Admiralty entirely on its merits from the point of view of the training likely to be given and the class likely to come forward to receive that training. The hon. and gallant Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) raised a number of points as to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and undoubtedly I agree with him that it is most desirable that men who give patriotic service should not be the losers. I am not sure if he can have read the Admiralty monthly orders issued in March dealing with the various items of pay and allowance connected with the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, but sooner than detain the Committee now I propose to write to him and inform him on those points.

Question put, and agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,725,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the
Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

HALF-PAY AND RETIRED PAY.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,093,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half-pay and Retired Pay, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

NAVAL AND MARINE PENSIONS, GRATUITIES, AND COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,003,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £816,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lieut.-Colonel Leslie Wilson.)

Mr. HOGGE: What is the re-arrangement of business? Is it a fact that the Railways Bill is not to be taken on Friday?

Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Will my hon. Friend put a question to the Leader of the House to-morrow on that point? There has been strong representations made that the Railways Bill should not be taken on Friday, but I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing the Leader of the House, and I should not now like to give a definite reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not know why we should adjourn now, with Private Business on the Paper. The hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) has a Bill down—the Coroners (Remuneration) Bill—which I believe the Government are in favour of. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury did give up the practice of adjourning the House before Whitsuntide when there was time left for private Members' Bills, and I hope he is not going back on that to the extent of adjourning the House whenever the Government business has been gone through, and thus deprive private Members of their rights, which are being more and more encroached upon. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be the first to admit that some of the private Bills that have gone through this Session have been extremely valuable. Is it possible for the Adjournment Motion to be withdrawn? I think hon. Members opposite might support us in standing up for the rights of private Members, for otherwise the Government will take away the whole of those rights. They break their pledges to deal with grave matters
of public importance, because they say that Parliamentary time will not permit, yet here we are proposing to adjourn at a very early hour.

Colonel WILSON: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we have no desire to deprive private Members of their time, and in regard to the Bill which he has mentioned, it is, I understand, non-contentious, and I hope there will be an opportunity to take it at 11 to-morrow. I must remind my hon. and gallant Friend that to-day is an allotted day for Supply, and if any other business were taken to-day, the Supply Day would be lost. In view of the time available for Parliamentary business, it is not possible to allow this day to be lost in that way.

Mr. ACLAND: On the understanding that there will be an opportunity for the private Member's Bill in question to be taken after 11 to-morrow, I think we might all now go home.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock.